Skip to main content

Full text of "St. Paul's epistle to the Ephesians. A rev. text and translation with exposition and notes"

See other formats







Dn ke TNA Pe 
Hea Bet AY SE wes Tani 





Bet ek Ae I 





pote: 
mores 

















































































































ee a paah ap lear OREN Dat ae RP 
nD eR at 
Ta Fae i ache Ae 



























































re ‘i 
: Pater * sirens peer ene 
































‘Ae Bea Se nc 
- ith al A a> 









































. 5 a ogheig peers eS ane: Paces. » 
tayo —_— cea rina ~~ 
>" : te nti gt etet 








Se 

wr ete 
ey A 
l(a ar 
— - ——e 






















































































Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https://archive.org/details/stpaulsepistletoOOrobirich 











BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 


UNITY IN CHRIST, AND OTHER SERMONS. 


Crown 8yo. 6s. 


LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., Lrp. 








ST PAUL'S 
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 





MACMILLAN AND CO., LimrtTep 
LONDON + BOMBAY + CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 


THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 


NEW YORK + BOSTON + CHICAGO 
ATLANTA * SAN FRANCISCO 


THE MACMILLAN CO, OF CANADA, Lrtp. 
TORONTO 


aie Ses 
(PPP | ta Sie Sh 


ST PAUL'S 
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 


A REVISED TEXT AND TRANSLATION 


WITH 


EXPOSITION AND NOTES 


BY 


J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON D.D. 


DEAN OF WESTMINSTER 





6S ase 
UNIVERSITY | 
: OF By 


CALIFORNYE 


SECOND EDITION 


MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED 
ST. MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON 


19907 


All rights reserved 


19 04 


EN CHAL 


First Edition, 1903. 
Second Edition, 1904. 
heprinted 1907. 


AMPLISSIMO - THEOLOGORVM - HALLENSIVM . ORDINI 
QVORVM -. EX - DECRETO 
AD - GRADVM . DOCTORIS . IN « SACRA - THEOLOGIA 
ANTE « NOVEM - ANNOS - PROVECTVS . SVM 
HAS » CHARTAS - TANDEM 
HAVD . IMMEMOR 
DEDICO 


EN COMA Kal EN TINEYMA. 


> “ a“ 
Oddév eoriv dyewov eipnyyns, év f was modepos KatTapyeira 


éroupaviov kal émvyeiov. 
IGNATIUS. 





ayTOc fdép écTIN H €lpHNH HMQN. 


' 


PREFACE. 


MN English commentator on the Epistle to the Ephesians 

finds a portion of the detail of his work already done 
by the master-hand of Bishop Lightfoot in his edition of the 
companion Epistle to the Colossians. For the discussion of 
particular words I have accordingly referred again and again 
to Lightfoot’s notes. Where I have felt obliged to differ from 
some of his interpretations, it has seemed due to him that 
I should state the ground of the difference with considerable 
fulness, as for example in more than one of the detached notes: 
for we may not lightly set aside a judgment which he has 
given, 

Lightfoot had himself made preparations for an edition of 
Ephesians; but only an introductory Essay and notes on the 
first fourteen verses have seen the light (Biblical Essays, 
pp. 375—396; Notes on Epistles of St Paul, pp. 307—324), 
A more solid contribution to the study of the epistle is to be 
found in Hort’s Introductory Lectures (Prolegomena to Romans 
and Ephesians, pp. 63—184). I have nothing to add to the 
discussion of the authorship of this epistle which these lectures 
contain. 


My object has been to expound the epistle, which is the 
crown of St Paul's writings. I have separated the exposition 
from the philological commentary, in order to give myself 
greater freedom in my attempt to draw out St Paul’s meaning : 
and I have prefixed to each section of the exposition a trans- 
lation of the Greek text. In this translation I have only 


Vill PREFACE. 


departed from the Authorised Version where that version 
appeared to me to fail to bring out correctly and intelligibly 
the meaning of the original. The justification of the renderings 
which I retain, as well as of those which I modify or reject, 
must be sought in the notes to the Greek text. 


In order to retain some measure of independence I have 
refrained from consulting the English expositors of the epistle, 
but I have constantly availed myself of Dr T. K. Abbott’s work 
in the International Critical Commentary, since it is as he 
says ‘primarily philological.’ 

I offer the fruit of a study which has extended over the 
past ten years as a small contribution to the interpretation of 
St Paul. The truth of the corporate life which was revealed 
to him was never more needed than it is to-day. Our failure 
to understand his life and message has been largely due to our 
acquiescence in disunion. As we rouse ourselves to enquire 
after the meaning of unity, we may hope that he will speak 
to us afresh. 


Several friends have helped me in seeing this book through 
the press: I wish to thank in particular the Reverend 


J. O. F. Murray and the Reverend R. B. Rackham. 


WESTMINSTER ABBEY, 
Feast of the Transfiguration, 1903. 


CONTENTS. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


PAGE 

BIT ICODI OC LION isco cccokevuenas sacaceyesscossrtavietevarsucevscseniesues I 
TRANSLATION: AND EXPOSITION © icccisiccsicvesscastaccsstess 17 
PGR PAINT NOLES cise ctesuayourarvercs: asccetvatess cédevtas see seaapaewess I4I 
On the meanings of yapis ANA YapeTOOV ..e.cececcecececeseseeceecees 23% 
‘The Beloved’ as & Messianic title ...cciccccccccssccccsseseseossescsss 229 

On the meaning of pvotnpiov in the New Testament............. 234 

On DEpyie GNA TE COGRALER o.cevevicedsessinamnescedsecaneciensnsesusse 241 

On 6 INOATANY OF CNIVPOTUD oo sc kc Sones exon css ooadsvcoseelasnvasencoass 248 

Oni the Weaning Of minawiia. ©3025 sisels depts eae 255 

CE NE DOV TUDE DONO YELP cscs 5c ocaaicdgsas ona cavndeeviaswetasen bea kone 260 

OR BODDTS- ANE BUD OT Ss conctsiasctcaessee ta yaessnsentontancssesueseeci ys 264 

On some current epistolary Phrases. .....ccccceccscccccsscscsccccsceees 275 
VGEE ON CATAOUE TEMOUNIE > ooo se Iii samov cnn vsdenoneed iti sesaieentetes 285 

PN DEX COL GHEE: VE OLDS) sieves cies iediecssauncees basse Seaon'esh es 305 


PN DEK OF SO Lod BCLS owecssnsksstasccsecseipiesssreisuneavcnes thavkstens 311 


man 
i} EK. 


A) 











fi PALS 
OF THE 


UNIVERSITY 
< SAticonih e 






INTRODUCTION. 


S' PAUL was in Rome: not, as he had once hoped, on a St Paul in 
Rome: 

friendly visit of encouragement to the Roman Christians, 

resting with them for a few weeks before he passed on to 

preach to new cities of the further West; not in the midst 

of his missionary career, but at its close. His active work was 

practically done: a brief interval of release might permit him 

to turn eastwards once again; but to all intents and purposes 

his career was ended. He was a prisoner in Rome. 

To know what had brought him there, and to comprehend ne rae 
his special mission, of which this was in truth no unfitting bi - mis: 
climax, we must pass in brief review the beginnings of the” 
Christian story. 

1, Our Lord’s earthly life began and ended among a people 1. Our 

Lord’s 
the most exclusive and the most hated of all the races under ministry 
the universal Roman rule. But it was a people who had an un- al ba 
paralleled past to look back upon, and who through centuries of 
oppression had cherished an undying hope of sovereignty over 
all other races in the world. Our Lord’s life was essentially a 
Jewish life in its outward conditions. In every vital point He 
conformed to the traditions of Judaism. Scarcely ever did 
He set foot outside the narrow limits of the Holy Land, the 
area of which was not much larger than that of the county of 
Yorkshire or the principality of Wales. With hardly an excep- 
tion He confined His teaching and His miracles to Jews, He 
was not sent, He said, but unto the lost sheep of the house of 

EPHES. ° I 


2. The 
early 
Church 
begins 
with the 
same limi- 
tation. 


A popular 
move- 
ment, 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Israel. It is true that He gave hints of a larger mission, of 
founding a universal kingdom, of becoming in His own person 
the centre of the human race. But the exclusive character of 
His personal ministry stood in sharp contrast to those wider 
hopes and prophecies. He incessantly claimed for His teaching 
that it was the filling out and perfecting of the sacred lessons 
of the lawgivers and prophets of the past. He seemed content 
to identify Himself with Hebrew interests and Hebrew aspira- 
tions. So it was from first to last. He was born into a Jewish 
family, of royal lineage, though in humble circumstances; and 
it was as a Jewish pretender that the Romans nailed Him to 
& cross. 

2. The little brotherhood which was formed in Jerusalem 
to carry on His work after His Ascension was as strictly limited 
in the sphere of its efforts as He Himself had been. It was 
composed entirely of Jews, who in no way cut themselves off 
from the national unity, and who were zealous worshippers in 
the national temple. It was a kind of Reformation movement 
within the Jewish Church. It sought for converts only among 
Jews, and it probably retained its members for the most part 
at the national centre in the expectation of the speedy return 
of Jesus as the recognized national Messiah, who should break 
the Roman power and rule a conquered world from the throne 
of David in J erusalem., 

We cannot say how long this lasted: perhaps about five 
years, But we know that during this period—a long one in 
the childhood of a new society—the Apostles and the other 
brethren enjoyed the esteem and good will of all except the 
governing class in Jerusalem, and that their numbers grew 
with astonishing rapidity. The movement was characteristi- 
cally a popular one. While the Sadducaic high-priestly party 
dreaded it, and opposed it when they dared, the leader of the 
Pharisees openly befriended it, and ‘a great multitude of the 
priests’ (who must be distinguished from their aristocratic 
rulers) ‘became obedient to the faith’ (Acts vi. 7). This 
statement indicates the high-water mark of the movement in 


INTRODUCTION. 3 


its earliest stage. It shews too that there was as yet no breach loyal to 
at all with Judaism, and that the specifically Christian gather- ere 
ings for exhortation, prayers and eucharists were not regarded 

as displacing or discrediting the divinely sanctioned sacrificial 
worship of the temple. 

3. But the Apostles had received a wider commission, 3. A crisis 
although hitherto they had strictly adhered to the order of the pidge 
Lord’s command by ‘beginning at Jerusalem.’ A crisis came 
at last. A storm suddenly broke upon their prosperous calm: 

a storm which seemed in a moment to wreck the whole structure 
which they had been building, and to dash their fair hope of 
the national conversion in iretrievable ruin. 

The Jews of Alexandria had been widened by contact with by St 
Greek philosophy and culture. They had striven to present ar : 
their faith in a dress which would make it less deterrent to '#¢h78- 
the Gentile mind. If we cannot say for certain that St Stephen 
was an Alexandrian, we know at any rate that he was a repre- 
sentative of the Hellenistic element in the Church at Jerusalem. 

A large study of the Old Testament scriptures had prepared 

him to see in the teaching of Christ a wider purpose than others 

saw. He felt that the Christian Church could not always 

remain shut up within the walls of Jerusalem, or even limited 

to Jewish believers. What he said to suggest innovation and 

to arouse opposition we do not know. We only know that the What he 
points on which he was condemned were false charges, not ee 
unlike some which had been brought against the Lord Himself. ais 

He was accused of disloyalty to Moses and the temple—the 

sacred law and the divine sanctuary. His defence was drawn 

from the very writings which he was charged with discrediting. The politi- 
But it was not heard to the end. He was pleading a cause rh apbe 
already condemned; and the two great political parties were ating 
at one in stamping out the heresy of the universality of 

the Gospel. For it is important to note the change in the 
Pharisaic party. Convinced that after all the new movement 

was fatal to their narrow traditionalism, they and the common 

people, whose accepted leaders they had always been, swung 


I——2 


Persecu- 
tion scat- 
ters the 
Church, 


which is 
thus in- 
volved in 
the conse- 


quences of 


the wider 
teaching, 
without 
being 
asked to 
sanction 
it. 


4. The 
begin- 
nings of 
extension 
to the 
Gentiles. 


Philip, 


but Saul, 
is to be 
the suc- 
cessor of 
Stephen. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


round into deadly opposition. The witnesses, who by the law 
must needs cast the first stones at the condemned, threw off their 
upper garments at the feet of a young disciple of Gamaliel. 

The murder of St Stephen was followed by a general perse- 
cution, and in a few days the Apostles were the only Christians 
left in Jerusalem. We may fairly doubt whether the Church 
as a whole would have been prepared to sanction St Stephen’s 
line of teaching. Had they been called to pronounce upon it, 
they might perhaps have censured it as rash and premature, if 
not indeed essentially unsound. But they were never asked 
the question. They were at once involved in the consequences 
of what he had taught, with no opportunity of disclaiming it. 
Providence had pushed them forward a step, and there was 
no possibility of a return. 

4. The scattered believers carried their message with them ; 
and they soon found themselves proclaiming it to a widening 
circle of hearers. St Philip preaches to the unorthodox and 
half-heathen Samaritans; later he baptises an Ethiopian, no 
Jew, though a God-fearing man. St Peter himself formally 
declares to a Roman centurion at Caesarea that now at length 
he is learning the meaning of the old saying of his Jewish Bible; 
that ‘God is no respecter of persons’, At Antioch a Church 
springs up, which consists largely of Gentile converts. 

But we must go back to Jerusalem to get a sight of the 
man on whom St Stephen’s prophetic mantle has fallen. He 
was with him when he was taken up, and a double portion 
of his spirit is to rest upon him. The fiery enthusiasm of the 
persecuting Saul, the most conspicuous disciple of the greatest 
Pharisee of the age, was a terrible proof that Christianity 
had forfeited the esteem and favour of her earliest years in 
Jerusalem. The tide of persecution was stemmed indeed by 
his conversion to the persecuted side: but for some time his 
own life was in constant danger, and he retired into obscurity. 
He came out of his retirement as the Apostle, not of a 
Christianized Judaism, but of St Stephen’s wider Gospel for 
the world. 


INTRODUCTION. . 


Alike by birth and training he was peculiarly fitted to be His three- 
the champion of such a cause. A Jew, born in a Greek city, gl 
and possessed of the Roman franchise, he was in his own person fr his | 
the meeting-point of three civilisations. In a unique sense 
he was the heir of all the world’s past. The intense devotion 
of the Hebrew, with his convictions of sin and righteousness 
and judgment to come; the flexible Greek language, ready 
now to interpret the East to the West; the strong Roman 
force of centralisation, which had made wars to cease and had 
bidden the world to be at one :—in each of these great world- 
factors he had, and realised that he had, his portion: each of 
them indeed was a factor in the making of his personality 
and his career. With all that the proudest Jew could boast, 
he had the entry into the larger world of Greek culture, and 
withal a Roman’s interest in the universal empire. He was 
a man to be claimed by a great purpose, if such a purpose 
there were to claim him. His Judaism could never have 
enabled him to enter on the fulness of his inheritance. Chris- 
tianity found him ‘a chosen vessel’, and developed his capacity 
to the utmost. 

The freer atmosphere of the semi-Gentile Church in Antioch rene 
marked out that great commercial centre as a fitting sphere jng-point. 
for his earliest work. From it he was sent on a mission to 
Cyprus and Asia Minor, in the course of which, whilst always 
starting in the Jewish synagogue, he found himself perpetually 
drawn on to preach his larger Gospel to the Gentiles. Thus nie 
along the line of his route new centres of Gentile Christianity founded. 
were founded,—Churches in which baptism practically took the 
place of circumcision, and Jews and Gentiles were associated 
on equal terms. At Antioch, on his return, the news of this 
was gladly welcomed: ‘a door of faith’ had been opened to the 
Gentiles, and they were pressing into the kingdom of God. 

5. We could hardly have expected that the Christians of Le Pes 
Jerusalem, now again returned to their home, would view the of the 

: : “11 2, Jewish 
matter with the same complacency. The sacred city with its peliever. 


memories of the past, the solemn ritual of the temple, the holy 


His dis- 
may was 
natural. 


The ren- 
dering 
‘Christ’ 
disguises 
from us 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


language of the scriptures and the prayers of the synagogue 
all spoke to them of the peculiar privileges and the exceptional 
destiny of the Hebrew people. Was all this to go for nothing ? 
Were outside Gentiles, strangers to the covenant with Moses, 
to rise at a bound to equal heights of privilege with the 
circumcised people of God? 

We are apt to pass too harsh a judgment on the main body 
of the Jewish believers, because we do not readily understand 
the dismay which filled their minds at the proposed inclusion of 
Gentiles in the Christian society, the nucleus of the Messianic 
kingdom, with no stipulation whatever of conformity to Jewish 
institutions. Day by day, as the Jewish believer went to his 
temple-prayers, it was his proud right to pass the barrier 
which separated Jew from Gentile in the house of God. What 
was this intolerable confusion which was breaking down the 
divinely constituted middle-wall of partition between them? 
His dearest hope, which the words of Christ had only seemed 
for a moment to defer, was the restoration of the kingdom 
to Israel. What had become of that, if the new society was to 
include the Gentile on the same footing as the Jew? Was not 
Christ emphatically and by His very name the Messiah of the 
Jewish nation? Could any be a good Christian, unless he 
were first a good Jew? 

It is essential to an understanding of St Paul’s special 
mission, and of the whole view of Christianity which he was 
led to take during the progress of that mission, that we should 


the Jewish appreciate this problem as it presented itself to the mind of 


‘Messiah’. 


the Jew who had believed in Christ. The very fact that 
throughout the Apostolic writings the Greek translation Xpucrés 
takes the place of the Hebrew ‘ Messiah’ disguises from us the 
deep significance which every mention of the name must have 
had for the Palestinian Christian. The Syriac versions of the 
New Testament, in which the old word naturally comes back 
again, help us to recover this special point of view. How 
strangely—to take a few passages at random!—do these words 


4: Cor. vill rt, ix 12, xii 27. 


INTRODUCTION. 7 


sound to us: ‘him who is weak, for whom the Messiah died’; 
‘the Gospel of the Messiah’; ‘ye are the body of the Messiah’. 
Yet nothing less than this could St Paul’s words have meant 
to every Jew that heard them. 

Again, St Paul’s own championship of Gentile liberty is St Paul’s 
so prominent in his writings, that we are tempted to overlook ofthe 
those passages which shew how keenly he himself realised “*™##- 
the pathos of the situation. A Hebrew of purest Hebrew 
blood, a Pharisee as his father was before him, he saw to his 
bitter sorrow, what every Jewish Christian must have seen, that 
his doctrine of Gentile freedom was erecting a fresh barrier 
against the conversion of the Jewish nation: that the very 
universality of the Gospel was issuing in the self-exclusion of 
the Jew. The mental anguish which he suffered is witnessed 
to by the three great chapters of the Epistle to the Romans 
(ix—xi), in which he struggles towards a solution of the 
problem. ‘A disobedient and gainsaying people’ it is, as the 
prophet had foretold. And yet the gifts and the calling of © 
God are never revoked; ‘God hath not cast off His people, 
whom He foreknew’. The future must contain somewhere the 
justification of the present: then, though it cannot be now, 

‘all Israel shall be saved’. It is the largeness of his hope The 
that steadies him. His work is not for the souls of men so aie 
much as for the Purpose of God in Christ. The individual eae at 
counts but little in comparison. The wider issues are always him. 
before him. Not Jews and Gentiles merely, but Jew and 
Gentile, are the objects of his solicitude. Not the rescue of 

some out of the ruin of all is the hope with which the Gospel 

has inspired him, but the summing up of all persons and all 

things in Christ. 

6. The feeling, then, which rose in the minds of the Chris- 6. The 
tian portion of the Jewish people on hearing of the proposed ria 
indiscriminate admission of Gentiles into the Church of Christ *"° 
might have found its expression in the ery, ‘The Jewish Messiah The 
for the Jews!’ Gentiles might indeed be allowed a place in —_ man 


the kingdom of God. The old prophets had foretold as much 


not taken 
by the 
Apostles, 


The con- 
flict at 
Antioch. 


The con- 
ference at 
Jerusa- 
lem. 


The 
danger 
averted 
for the 
moment 
only. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


as this. Nor was it contrary to the established practice of 
later Judaism, after it had been forced into contact with the 
Greek world. The Gentile who submitted to circumcision and 
other recognised conditions might share the privileges of the 
chosen people. But admission on any lower terms amounted 
to a revolution; the very proposition was a revolt against 
divinely sanctioned institutions. 

We are not to suppose that the Apostles themselves, or 
even the majority of the Jewish believers, took so extreme 
a view: the conference at Jerusalem is a proof that they did 
not. But even they may well have been perplexed at the 
swiftness with which a change was coming over the whole face 
of the movement in consequence of St Paul’s missionary action: 
and they must have perceived that this change would be 
deeply obnoxious in particular to those earnest Pharisees whom 
they had led to believe in Jesus as the nation’s Messiah. 

Some of the more ardent of these found their way to 
Antioch, where they proclaimed to the Gentile believers: 
‘Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot 
be saved’. Happily St Paul was there to champion the Gentile 
cause. We need but sketch the main features of the struggle 
that ensued. 

A conference with the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem 
was the first step. Here after much discussion St Peter rises 
and recalls the occasion on which he himself had been divinely 
guided to action like St Paul’s. Then comes the narrative of 
facts from the missionaries themselves. Finally St James 
formulates the decision which is reached, ‘to lay on them 
no other burden’ than certain simple precepts, which must of 
necessity be observed if there were to be any fellowship at all 
between Jewish and Gentile believers. | 

So the first battle was fought and won. The Divine 


attestation given to St Paul’s work among the Gentiles was a 


proof that God had opened to them also the door of faith. 
They were pressing in: who could withstand God by trying to 
shut the door? But when the novelty of the wonder wore 


INTRODUCTION. 9 


away, the old questionings revived, and it seemed as though 
the Church must be split into two divisions—Jewish and 
Gentile Christians. 

To St Paul’s view such a partition was fatal to the very Two con- 
mission of Christianity, which was to be the healer of the evita 
world’s divisions. The best years of his life were accordingly 
devoted to reconciliation. Two great epistles witness to this 
endeavour: the Epistle to the Galatians, in which he mightily 
defends Gentile liberty; and the Epistle to the Romans, in 
which, writing to the central city of the world, the seat of its 
empire and the symbol of its outward unity, he holds an even 
balance between Jew and Gentile, and claims them both as 
necessary to the Purpose of God. 

One practical method of reconciliation was much in his Gentile 
thoughts. Poverty had oppressed the believersin Judaea. Here mip 


to meet 
was a rare chance for Gentile liberality to shew that St Paul Jewish 


was right in saying that Jew and Gentile were one man in sabi 
Christ. Hence the stress which he laid on the collection of 
alms, ‘the ministry unto the saints’ (2 Cor.ix 1). The alms 
collected, he himself must journey to Jerusalem to present 
them in person. He knows that he does so at the risk of his 
life: but if he dies, he dies in the cause for which he has lived. 
His one anxiety is lest by any means his mission to Jerusalem 
should fail of its end; and he bids the Roman Christians 
wrestle in prayer, not only that his life may be spared, but also 
that ‘the ministry which he has for Jerusalem’, or, to use an 
earlier phrase, ‘the offering of the Gentiles’, may be ‘acceptable 
to the saints ’ (Rom. xv 16, 31). 

His journey was successful from this point of view; but it St Paul’s 
led to an attack upon him by the unbelieving Jews, and a long paaatd 
imprisonment in Caesarea followed. Yet even this, disastrous seis 
as it seemed, furthered the cause of peace and unity within 
the Christian Church. St Paul was removed from the scene of 
conflict. Bitter feelings against his person naturally subsided 
when he was in prison for his Master’s sake. His teachings 
and his letters gained in importance and authority. Before he 


Io 


close the 
contro- 
versy. 


7. The 
occasion 
of the 
Epistle 
to the 
Ephe- 
sians, 


A non- 
controver- 
sial expo- 
sition of 
positive 
truth: 


the issue 
of his his- 
tory and 
of his im- 
mediate 
circum- 
stances. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


was taken to his trial at Rome the controversy was practically 
dead. Gentile liberty had cost him his freedom, but it was an 
accomplished fact. He was ‘the prisoner of Jesus Christ on 
behalf of the Gentiles’; but his cause had triumphed, and the 
equal position of privilege of the Gentile converts was never 
again to be seriously challenged. 


7. Thus St Paul had been strangely brought to the place 
where he had so often longed to find himself. At last he was 
in Rome: a prisoner indeed, but free to teach and free to write. 
And from his seclusion came three epistles—to the Philippians, 
to the Colossians, and ‘ to the Ephesians’. 

The circumcision question was dead. Other questions were 
being raised; and to these the Epistle to the Colossians in 
particular is controversially addressed. This done, his mind is 
free for one supreme exposition, non-controversial, positive, 
fundamental, of the great doctrine of his life—that doctrine 
into which he had been advancing year by year under the 
discipline of his unique circumstances—the doctrine of the 
unity of mankind in Christ and of the purpose of God for the — 
world through the Church. 

The foregoing sketch has enabled us in some measure to 
see how St Paul was specially trained by the providence that 
ruled his life to be the exponent of a teaching which transcends 
all other declarations of the purpose of God for man. The best 
years of his Apostolic labour had been expended in the effort to 
preserve in unity the two conflicting elements of the Christian 
Church. And now, when signal success has crowned his 
labours, we find him in confinement at the great centre of the 
world’s activity writing to expound to the Gentile Christians of 
Asia Minor what is his final conception of the meaning and 
aim of the Christian revelation. He is a prisoner indeed, but 
not in a dungeon: he is in his own hired lodging. He is not 
crushed by bodily suffermg. THe can think and teach and 
write. Only he cannot go away. At Rome he is on a kind of 
watch-tower, like a lonely sentinel with a wide field of view 


INTRODUCTION. II 


but forced to abide at his post. His mind is free, and ranges 
over the world—past, present and future. With a large liberty 
of thought he commences his great argument ‘before the 
foundation of the world’, and carries it on to ‘the fulness of the 
times’, embracing in its compass ‘all things in heaven and on 
the earth’. 

8. If the writer’s history and circumstances help us to 8. The 
understand the meaning of his epistle, so too will a considera- sey 
tion of the readers for whom it was intended. But here we “PS 
meet with a difficulty at the very outset. The words ‘in Omission 
Ephesus’ (i 1) are absent from some of our oldest and best oth pak 
MSS., and several of the Greek Fathers make it clear that they Ephesus’. 
did not find them in all copies. Indeed it is almost certain 
that they do not come from St Paul himself’. 

There are good reasons for believing that the epistle was A circular 
intended as a circular letter, an encyclical, to go the round of a 
many Churches in Asia Minor. We have parallels to this in 
1 St Peter and the Apocalypse, in both of which however the 
Churches in question are mentioned by their names. 

The capital of the Roman province of Asia was Ephesus, Naturally 
To Ephesus such a letter would naturally go first of all: and frst to 
when in later times a title was sought for it, to correspond EPhesus. 
with the titles of other epistles, no name would offer itself so 
readily and so reasonably as the name of Ephesus. Accordingly gs its 
the title ‘TO THE EPHESIANS’ was prefixed to it, And if,as — 
seems not improbable, the opening sentence contained a space 
into which the name of each Church in turn might be read— 

‘to the saints which are * * * and the faithful in Christ 
Jesus ’—it was certain that in many copies the words ‘in 
Ephesus’ would come to be filled in. 

The internal evidence of the epistle itself is in harmony The 
with the view that it was not specially intended for the Ephe- reg 
sian Church. For in more than one place the Apostle appears  asxinag 3 
to be writing to Christians whom he has never seen, of whose St Paul. 
faith he knew only by report, and who in turn knew of his 


1 See the detached note on év ’Ed¢écy. 


I2 


St Paul’s 
special 
relation 


to 
Ephesus. 


Yet this 
epistle 
has no 
saluta- 
tions of 
_indi- 
viduals. 


The incon- 


sistency 
disap- 
pears, if 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


teachings only through the medium of his disciples (i 15, ii 2, 
iv 21). 

Moreover the encyclical nature of the epistle removes what 
would otherwise be a most serious objection to its authenticity. 
If we read the notices of St Paul’s relations with Ephesus, as 
they are given by St Luke in the Acts, we observe that for a 
long while he appears to have been specially checked in his 
efforts to reach and to settle in that important centre. At one 


time ‘he was forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach the word 


in Asia’ (xvi 6). Other work must take precedence. Not 
only were the Galatian Churches founded first, but also the 
European Churches—Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth. Then 
on his way back from Corinth he touches at the city of his 
desire, but only to hurry away, though with a promise to 
return, if God so will (xviii 21). At last he comes to remain, 
and he makes it a centre, so that ‘all they which dwelt in 
Asia heard the word of the Lord’ (xix 10). As he tells the 
Ephesian elders at Miletus, when he believes that he is saying 
his last words to them, ‘ For three years night and day I ceased 
not to warn every one of you with tears’ (xx 31). 

To judge by the other letters of St Paul, we should expect 
to find a letter to the Ephesians unusually full of personal 
details, reminiscences of his long labours, warnings as to special 
dangers, kindly greetings to individuals by name. We are 
struck by the very opposite of all this. No epistle is so general, 
so little addressed to the peculiar needs of one Church more 
than another. As for personal references and greetings, there 
are none, Even Timothy’s name is not joined with St Paul’s 
at the outset, as it is in the Epistle to the Colossians, written 
at the same time and carried by the same messenger: not one 
proper name is found in the rest of the epistle, except that of 
Tychicus its bearer. ‘Peace to the brethren’, is its close; 
‘grace be with all that love our Lord’. 

The apparent inconsistency disappears the moment we strike 
out the words ‘in Ephesus’. No one Church is addressed: the 
letter will go the round of the Churches with the broad lessons 


INTRODUCTION. 13 


which all alike need: Tychicus will read in the name from this isa 

; “° , , circular 
place to place, will explain St Paul’s own circumstances, and jetter, 
will convey by word of mouth his messages to individuals. 

Thus the local and occasional element is eliminated: and The elimi- 
in this we seem to have a further explanation of that wider ae 
view of the Church and the world, which we have in part eh Seay 
accounted for already by the consideration of the stage in a wider 
the Apostle’s career to which this epistle belongs, and by hack 


the special significance of his central position in Rome. 


The following is an analysis of the epistle: Analysis. 


i1, 2. Opening salutation. 
i3—14. A Doxology, expanded into 
(a) a description of the Mystery of God’s will: elec- 
tion (4), adoption (5), redemption (7), wisdom (8), 
consummation (10) ; 
(6) a statement that Jew and Gentile alike are the 
portion of God (11—14). 
i15—ii ro. A Prayer for Wisdom, expanded into a descrip- 
tion of God’s power, as shewn 
(a) in raising and exalting Christ (19—23), 
(6) in raising and exalting us in Christ, whether 
Gentiles or Jews (ii 1—10). 

ii r1o—22. The Gentile was an alien (11, 12); but is now 
one man with the Jew (13—18); a fellow-citizen (19), 
and part of God’s house (20—2z2). 

iii 1—13. Return to the Prayer for Wisdom ; but first 

(a) a fresh description of the Mystery (2—6), 
(6) and of St Paul’s relation to its proclamation (7—13). 

iii 14—21. The Prayer in full (14—19), with a Doxology 
(20, 22). 

iv 1—16. God’s calling involves a unity of life (1—6), 
to which diversity of gifts is intended to lead (7—14)— 
the unity in diversity of the Body (15, 16). 

iv 17—24. The old life contrasted with the new. 

iv 25—v 5. Precepts of the new life. 

v 6—z21. The old darkness and folly: the new light and 
wisdom. 


14 


The 
present 
interest 


- of the 


Epistle 
to the 
Ephe- 
sians. 


The 
Apostolic 
message 
is for all 
time, 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


v 22—vi g. Duties interpreted by relation to Christ: 
wives and husbands (22—33); 
children and parents (vi 1—4); 
slaves and masters (5—9). 
vi 1o—20. The spiritual warrior clad in God’s armour. 
vi 21—24. Closing words. 


The topic of the Epistle to the Ephesians is of pre-eminent 
interest in the present day. At no former period has there 
been so widespread a recognition in all departments of human 
life of the need of combination and cooperation: and never, 
perhaps, has more anxious thought been expended on the 
problem of the ultimate destiny of mankind. Whilst it is 
true that everywhere and always questions have been asked 
about the future, yet it is not too much to say that we, who 
have begun to feel after the truth of a corporate life as higher 
than an individual life, are more eager than any past generation 
has been to learn, and perhaps are more capable of learning, 
what is the goal for which Man as a whole is making, or, in 
other words, what is God’s Purpose for the Human Race. 

Among the perpetual marvels of the Apostolic writings is 
the fact that they contain answers to enquiries which have 
long waited to be made: that, while the form of the written 
record remains the same for all ages, its interpretation 
grows in clearness as each age asks its own questions in 
its Own way. 


EXPOSITION 


OF THE 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


WE SPEAK THE WISDOM OF GOD IN A MYSTERY, 
THE WISDOM THAT HATH BEEN HIDDEN, 
WHICH GOD FOREORDAINED BEFORE THE WORLD 
UNTO OUR GLORY. 





One God, one law, one element, 
And one far-off divine event, 
To which the whole creation moves. 


[TO THE: EPHESIANS] 


| Dae an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to theizs, 2 

saints which are [at Hphesus| and the faithful in Christ 
Jesus: *Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the 
Lord Jesus Christ. 


The two points which distinguish this salutation have been 
noticed already in the Introduction. No other name is joined with 
St Paul’s, although the salutation of the Epistle to the Colossians, 
written at the same time, links with him ‘Timothy the brother’. 
No one Church is addressed, but a blank is left, that each Church 
in turn may find its own name inserted by the Apostle’s messenger. 
Paul the Apostle, and no other with him, addresses himself not to 
the requirements of a single community of Christians, but to a 
universal need—the need of a larger knowledge of the purposes 
of God. 


3 BLESSED be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, i 3-14 
who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessing in the heavenly 
places in Christ: * according as He hath chosen us in Him before 
the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and 
blameless before Him in love; * having foreordained us to the 
adoption of sons through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according 
to the good pleasure of His will, °to the praise of the glory 
of His grace, which He hath freely bestowed on us in the 
Beloved; 7in whom we have redemption through His blood, the 
forgiveness of trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, 
*which He hath made to abound toward us in all wisdom and 
prudence, ° having made known unto us the mystery of His will, 
according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in. 
Him, * for dispensation in the fulness of the times, to gather 


EPHES.” 2 


18 


i3 


2 Cor. vii 


2 Cor. i 3, 
4 


EXPOSITION OF THE [I 3 


up in one all things in Christ, both which are in the heavens 
and which are on earth; in Him, “in whom also we have been 
chosen as God’s portion, having been foreordained according to 
the purpose of Him who worketh all things according to the 
counsel of His will, “that we should be to the praise of His 
glory, who have been the first to hope in Christ; “in whom ye 
also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your 
salvation,—in whom also having believed, ye have been sealed 
with the holy Spirit of promise, “which is the earnest of our 
inheritance, unto the redemption of G'od’s own possession, to 


the praise of His glory. 


From the outset the elimination of the personal element seems 
to affect the composition. Compare the introductory words of some 
of the epistles: 


1 Thess. ‘We thank God always concerning you all...’ 

2 Thess. ‘We are bound to thank God always for you...’ 
Gal. ‘I marvel that ye are so soon changing...’ 

Col. ‘We thank God always concerning you...’ 


Here, however, no personal consideration enters. His great 
theme possesses him at once: ‘ Blessed be God...who hath blessed 
us’, The customary note of thanksgiving and prayer is indeed 
sounded (vv. 15 f.), but not until the great doxology has run its full 
course. 

There is one parallel to this opening. The Second Epistle to 
the Corinthians was written in a moment of relief from intense 
strain. The Apostle had been anxiously waiting to learn the effect 
of his former letter. At length good news reaches him: ‘God’, 
as he says later on, ‘which comforteth them that are low, com- 
forted us by the coming of Titus’, In the full joy of his heart he 
begins his epistle with a burst of thanksgiving to the Divine 
Consoler; ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who com- 
forteth us in all our trouble, that we may be able to comfort them 
that are in any trouble, by means of the comfort with which 
we ourselves are comforted of God’. 

The blessing there ascribed to God is for a particular mercy: 
‘Blessed be God...who comforteth us’. But here no special boon is 
in his mind. The supreme mercy of God to man fills his thoughts: 
‘ Blessed be God...who hath blessed us’. 





I 3] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 19 


The twelve verses which follow baffle our analysis. They are a vv. 3—14 
kaleidoscope of dazzling lights and shifting colours: at first we fail 
to find a trace of order or method. They are like the preliminary 
flight of the eagle, rising and wheeling round, as though for a 
while uncertain what direction in his boundless freedom he shall 
take. So the Apostle’s thought lifts itself beyond the limits of 
time and above the material conceptions that confine ordinary men, 
and ranges this way and that in a region of spirit, a heavenly 
sphere, with no course as yet marked out, merely exulting in the 
attributes and purposes of God. 

At first we marvel at the wealth of his language: but soon we 
discover, by the very repetition of the phrases which have arrested 
us, the poverty of all language when it comes to deal with such 
topics as he has chosen. He seems to be swept along by his theme, 
hardly knowing whither it is taking him. He begins with God,— 
the blessing which comes from God to men, the eternity of His 
purpose of good, the glory of its consummation. But he cannot 
order his conceptions, or close his sentences. One thought presses 
hard upon another, and will not be refused. And so this great 
doxology runs on and on: ‘in whom...in Him...in Him, in whom... 
in whom...in whom...’. 

But as we read it again and again we begin to perceive certain 
great words recurring and revolving round a central point: 


‘The will’ of God: wv. 5, 9, 11. 
‘To the praise of His glory’: vv. 6, 12, 14. 
‘In Christ’: vv. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 bts, 11, 12, 13 50a. 


The will of God working itself out to some glorious issue in 
Christ—that is his theme. A single phrase of the ninth verse sums 
it up: it is ‘the mystery of His will’. 


In proceeding to examine the passage clause by clause we shall 
not here dwell on individual expressions, except in so far as their 
discussion is indispensable for the understanding of the main 
drift of the epistle. But at the outset there are certain words and 
phrases which challenge attention; and our hope of grasping the 
Apostle’s meaning depends upon our gaining a true conception 
of the standpoint which they imply. They must accordingly be 
treated with what might otherwise seem a disproportionate fulness. 

The third verse contains three such phrases. The first is: ‘with i 3 
all spiritual blessing’. It has been suggested that the Apostle 
inserts the epithet ‘spiritual’ because the mention of two Persons 
of the Blessed Trinity naturally leads him to introduce a reference 


Pinay) 


20 


Gen. xxii 
17 


Deut. 
XXViili 3, 5 


Vv 19 
vi 12 


Phil. ii 10 


EXPOSITION OF THE [I 3 


to the third. Accordingly we are asked to render the words: 
‘every blessing of the Spirit’. | 

But a little consideration will shew that the epithet marks an 
important contrast. The blessing of God promised in the Old 
Testament was primarily a material prosperity. Hence in some of 
its noblest literature the Hebrew mind struggled so ineffectually 
with the problem presented by the affliction of the righteous and 
the prosperity of the wicked. In the Book of Genesis the words 
‘in blessing I will bless thee’ are interpreted by ‘in multiplying I 
will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven’. In Deuteronomy 
the blessing of God is expressed by the familiar words: ‘ Blessed 
shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field ... 
Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store’. 

The blessing of the New Covenant is in another region: the 
region not of the body, but of the spirit. It is ‘spiritual blessing’, 
not carnal, temporal blessing. The reference then is not primarily 
to the Holy Spirit, though ‘spiritual blessing’ cannot be thought 
of apart from Him. The adjective occurs again in the phrase 
‘spiritual songs’: and also in the remarkable passage: ‘our wrest- 
ling is...against the spiritual (things) of wickedness in the heavenly 
(places)’. It is confirmatory of this view that in the latter passage 
it occurs in close connexion with the difficult phrase which we must 
next discuss. 


The expression ‘in the heavenly (places)’ occurs five times in this 
epistle (i 3, 20; i116; iii 10; vi 12), and is found nowhere else. 
The adjective (érovpdvios) is not new: we find it in Homer and 
Plato, as well as in the New Testament, including other epistles of 
St Paul. The nearest parallel is in an earlier letter of the same 
Roman captivity: ‘every knee shall bow of things in heaven and 
things on earth and things under the earth’. 

It might be rendered ‘among the heavenly things’, or ‘in the 
heavenly places’: or, to use a more modern term, ‘in the heavenly 
sphere’. It is a region of ideas, rather than a locality, which is 
suggested by the vagueness of the expression. To understand what 
it meant to St Paul’s mind we must look at the contexts in which 
he uses it. 

Leaving the present passage to the last, we begin with i 20: after 
the Resurrection God ‘ seated Christ at His right hand in the heavenly 
sphere, above every principality and authority and power and 
dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world but 
also in that which is to come’. Thus ‘the heavenly sphere’ is 
regarded as the sphere of all the ruling forces of the universe. The 


I 3] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 21 


highest place therein is described in Old Testament language as Ps. cx 1 
‘God’s right hand’. There Christ is seated above all conceivable rivals. 

We are not told whether the powers here spoken of are powers of 

good or powers of evil. The Psalm might suggest that the latter 

are at least included: ‘Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make 

Thine enemies Thy footstool’, But St Paul’s point is, as in 

Phil. ii 10, simply the supremacy of Christ over all other powers. 

In ii 6 we have the surprising statement that the position of 
Christ in this respect is also ours in Him, ‘ He raised us together 
and seated us together in the heavenly sphere in Christ Jesus; that 
He might display in the ages that are coming the surpassing riches 
of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus’. 

In iii 10 we read: ‘that there might now be made known to the 
principalities and powers in the heavenly sphere by means of the 
Church the very-varied wisdom of God’. St Paul is here speaking 
of his special mission to the Gentiles as belonging to the great 
mystery or secret of God’s dealings throughout the ages: there are 
powers in the heavenly sphere who are learning the purpose of God 
through the history of the Church. 

The last passage is perhaps the most remarkable: ‘We have not vi 12 
to wrestle against blood and flesh, but against the principalities, 
against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this 
world, against the spiritual (hosts) of wickedness wm the heavenly 
sphere’, Our foe, to meet whom we need the very ‘armour of 
God’, is no material foe: it is a spiritual foe, a foe who 
attacks and must be fought ‘in the heavenly sphere’, We are 
reminded of Satan standing among the sons of God and accusing Job i6 
Job. We are reminded again of the scene in the Apocalypse: 
‘there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels, to fight against Apoe. xii 7 
the dragon : and the dragon fought, and his angels’, 

We now return to our passage: ‘ Blessed be God ... who hath i3 
blessed us with all spiritual blessing in the heavenly sphere’. 

The heavenly sphere, then, is the sphere of spiritual activities : 
that immaterial region, the ‘unseen universe’, which lies behind the 
world of sense. In it great forces are at work: forces which are con- 
ceived of as having an order and constitution of their own ; as having 
in part transgressed against that order, and so having become dis- 
ordered: forces which in part are opposed to us and wrestle against 
us: forces, again, which take an intelligent interest in the purpose 
of God with His world, and for which the story of man is an 
object-lesson in the many-sided wisdom of God: forces, over all of 
which, be they evil or be they good, Christ is enthroned, and we in 
Him. 


22 


2 Cor. iv18 


EXPOSITION OF THE [I 3 


We may call to our aid one other passage to illustrate all this. 
‘The things in the heavens’, as well as ‘the things on earth’, are 
to be summed up—to be gathered up in one—in the Christ 
(i 10). Or, as the parallel passage, Col. i 20, puts it: ‘It pleased 
God to reconcile all things through Christ unto Himself, setting 
them at peace by the blood of the cross, whether they be the things 
on earth or the things in the heavens’. That is as much as to say, 
‘The things in the heavens’ were out of gear, as well as ‘the things 
on earth’, And so St Paul’s Gospel widens out into a Gospel of the 
Universe: the heavens as well as the earth are in some mysterious 
manner brought within its scope. 

It is important that we should understand this point of view. 
‘Heaven’ to us has come to mean a future state of perfect bliss. 
But, to St Paul’s mind, ‘in the heavenly sphere’ the very same 
struggle is going on which vexes us on earth. Only with this 
difference ; there Christ is already enthroned, and we by. representa- 
tion are enthroned with Him. 

In other words, St Paul warns us from the beginning that he 
takes a supra-sensual view of human life. He cannot rest in the 
‘things seen’: they are not the eternal, the real things: they are 
but things as they seem, not things as they are: they are things 
‘for a time’ (rpéckaipa), not things ‘for ever’ (aiwvia). 


The third important phrase which meets us on the threshold of 
the epistle is the phrase ‘an Christ’. It is characteristically Pauline. 
It is not, of course, confined to this epistle, but it is specially 
frequent here. 

A word must first of all be said as to the two forms in which 
St Paul uses the name ‘Christ’. It is found sometimes with and 
sometimes without the definite article. The distinction which is 
thus introduced cannot always be pressed: but, speaking generally, 
we may say that in the first case we have a title, in the second a 
proper name: in other words, the first form lays emphasis on the 
Office held, the second on the Person who holds it. 

In the present passage, in speaking of the blessing wherewith 
God has blessed us, St Paul points to Christ as the Person in whom 
we have that blessing—‘in Christ’. Below, in speaking more 
broadly of the purpose of God for the universe, he lays the stress 
upon the Office of the Messiah—‘to gather up in one all things in 
the Christ’. But it is possible that in many cases the choice be- 
tween the two forms was determined simply by the consideration of 
euphony. 

The Messiah was the hope of the Jewish nation. Their expecta- 


I 3] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 23 


tion for the future was summed up in Him. He was the Chosen, 
the Beloved, the Anointed of God; the ideal King in whom the 
nation’s destiny was to be fulfilled. 

The Life and Death of Jesus were in strange contrast to the 
general Messianic expectation. The Resurrection and Ascension 
restored the failing hope of His immediate followers, and at the 
same time helped to translate it to a more spiritual region. They 
revealed the earthly Jesus as the heavenly Christ. 

To St Paul ‘Jesus’ was preeminently ‘the Christ’. Very rarely 
does he use the name ‘Jesus’ without linking it with the name or 
the title ‘Christ’: perhaps, indeed, only where some special reference 
is intended to the earthly Life. So, for example, he speaks of ‘the 2 Cor.iv1o 
dying of Jesus’: and, in contrasting the earthly humiliation with 
the heavenly exaltation which followed it, he says: ‘that in the Phil-iirof. 
name of Jesus every knee should bow,...and every tongue confess 
that Jesus Christ is Lorp’. 

If the primary thought of the Messiah is a hope for the Jewish 
people, St Paul’s Gospel further proclaims Him to be the hope of 
the world of men, the hope even of the entire universe. That the 
Christ was the Christ of the Gentile, as well as of the Jew, was the 
special message which he had been called to announce—‘to bring as iii 8 
a gospel to the Gentiles the unexplorable wealth of the Christ’. 
This was the mystery, or secret of God, long hidden, now revealed : 
as he says to the Colossians: ‘God willed to make known what is Col. i 27 
the wealth of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which 
is Christ in you’—you Gentiles—‘ the hope of glory’. 

That ‘the Christ’ to so large an extent takes the place of ‘Jesus’ 
in St Paul’s thought is highly significant, and explains much that 
seems to call for explanation. It explains the fact that St Paul 
dwells so little on the earthly Life and the spoken Words of the 
Lord. He cannot have been ignorant of or indifferent to the great 
story which for us is recorded in the Gospels. Yet he scarcely 
touches any part of it, save the facts that Jesus was crucified, that 
He died and was buried, that He rose and ascended. Of the 
miracles which He wrought we hear nothing; of the miracle which 
attended His birth into the world we hear nothing. Of the struggles 
with the Pharisees, of the training of the Twelve, of the discourses 
to them and to the multitudes, he tells us nothing. It is a solitary 
exception when, as it were incidentally, he is led by a particular 
necessity to relate the institution of the Eucharist. 

Tt cannot have been that these things were of small moment in 
his eyes. He must have known at least most of them, and have 
valued them. But he had a message peculiarly his own: and that 


24 


EXPOSITION OF THE [I 3 


message dealt not with the earthly Jesus, so much as with the 
heavenly Christ. ‘In the heavenly sphere’ his message lies. ‘Hence- 


2 Cor. v 16 forth’, he says, ‘know we no man after the flesh: yea, if we have 


2 Cor. viiig 
Phil. ii 6 f. 


Acts ix 5 


Acts ix 22 


known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him (so) 
no more’. The Death, the Resurrection, the Ascension—these are 
to him the important moments of the life of Christ; they are the 
ladder that leads upwards from ‘Christ after the flesh’ to ‘Christ 
in the heavenly sphere’—the exalted, the glorified, the reigning 
Christ ; the Christ yet to be manifested as the consummation of the 
purpose of God. And if St Paul looked beyond the earthly life of 
the Lord in one direction, he looked beyond it also in another. To — 
his thought ‘the Christ’ does not begin with the historical ‘ Jesus’. 
The Christ is eternal in the past as well as in the future. The 
earthly life of Jesus is a kind of middle point, a stage of humiliation 
for a time. ‘Being rich, He became poor’; ‘being in the form of 
God...He humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant, coming 
to be in the likeness of men’. That stage of humiliation is past: 
‘God hath highly exalted Him’: we fix our gaze now on ‘Jesus 
Christ’ ascended and enthroned. 

We may not, indeed, think that ‘Jesus’ and ‘the Christ’ can 
ever in any way be separated: St Paul’s frequent combination of 
the two names is a witness against such a separation. Yet there 
are two aspects: and it is the heavenly aspect that predominates 
in the thought of St Paul. 

It is instructive in this connexion to compare the narrative of 
St Paul’s conversion with the account that immediately follows of 
his first preaching. It was ‘Jesus’ who appeared to him in the 
way: ‘Who art thou, Lord?...I am Jesus’. He had always looked 
for the Messiah: he was to be taught that in Jesus the Messiah 
had come, The lesson was learned; and we read: ‘Saul waxed 
strong the more, and confounded the Jews that dwelt in Damascus, 
proving that this was the Christ’, He had seen Jesus, risen and 
exalted: he knew Him henceforth as the Christ. 

We observe, then, that the conception which the phrase ‘in 
Christ’ implies belongs to the same supra-sensual region of ideas to 
which the two preceding phrases testify. The mystical union or 
identification which it asserts is asserted as a relation, not to 
‘Jesus ’—the name more distinctive of the earthly Life—but to ‘the 
Christ’ as risen and exalted. 

The significance of the relation to Christ, as indicated by the 
preposition ‘in’, and the issues of that relation, are matters on 
which light will be thrown as we proceed with the study of the 
epistle. But it is important to note at the outset how much is 


T 4] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


summed up in this brief phrase, and how prominent a position it 
holds in St Paul’s thought. 

In Christ, the eternal Christ, who suffered, rose, ascended, who 
is seated now at God’s right hand supreme over all the forces of the 
universe: in Christ, in the heavenly sphere wherein He now abides, 
in the region of spiritual activities, all spiritual blessing is ours: in 


Christ God has blessed us; blessed be God. 


In the verses which follow (4—14) we have an amplification of 
the thoughts of v. 3, and especially of the phrase ‘in Christ’. This 
amplification is introduced by the words ‘ according as’. 

And first St Paul declares that the blessing wherewith God hath 
blessed us is no new departure in the Divine counsels. It is in 
harmony with an eternal design which has marked us out as the 


recipients of this blessing: ‘according as He hath chosen us in Him i 


before the foundation of the world’, 

‘ He hath chosen us’ or ‘elected us’, Election is a term which 
suggests at once so much of controversy, that it may be well to lay 
emphasis on its primary sense by substituting, for the moment, a 
word of the same meaning, but less trammelled by associations— 
the word ‘selection’. 

The thought that God in His dealings with men proceeds by the 
method of selection was not new to St Paul. The whole of the 
Old Testament was an affirmation of this principle. He himself 
from his earliest days had learned to cherish as his proudest posses- 
sion the fact that he was included in the Divine Selection. He 
was a member of the People whom God had in Abraham selected 
for peculiar blessing. 

The Divine Selection of the Hebrew People to hold a privileged 
position, their ready recognition of that position and their selfish 
abuse of it, the persistent assertion of it by the Prophets as the 
ground of national amendment—this is the very theme of the Old 
Testament scriptures. .It is on account of this, above all, that the 
Christian Church can never afford to part with them. Only as we 
hold the Old Testament in our hands can we hope to interpret the 
New Testament, and especially the writings of St Paul. Only the 
history of the ancient Israel can teach us the meaning of the new 
‘Israel of God’. 

No new departure in principle was made by Christianity. Its 
very name of the New Covenant declares that God’s method is still 
the same. Only the application of it has been extended: the area 
of selection has been enlarged. A new People has been founded, a 
People not limited by geographical or by racial boundaries: but 


25 
Vv. 4-14 
i 4 
Gal. vi 16 


26 


14 


iv I 


EXPOSITION OF THE [I 4 


still a People, a Selected People—even as to-day we teach the 
Christian child to say: ‘The Holy Ghost, which sanctifieth me and 
all the Elect People of God’. 

God, then, says St Paul, selected us to be the recipients of the 
distinctive spiritual blessing of the New Covenant. It is in accord- 
ance with this Selection that He has blessed us. 

The Selection was made ‘in Christ before the foundation of 
the world’, That is to say, in eternity it is not new; though in 
time it appears as new. In time it appears as later than the 
Selection of the Hebrew People, and as an extension and develop- 
ment of that Selection. But it is an eternal Selection, indepen- 
dent of time; or, as St Paul puts it, ‘before the foundation of the 
world’. 

Here we must ask: Whom does St Paul regard as the objects 
of the Divine Selection? He says: ‘Blessed be God...who hath 
blessed us...according as He hath selected us... before the foundation 
of the world’. What does he mean by the word ‘us’? 

The natural and obvious interpretation is that he means to 
include at least himself and those to whom he writes. He has 
spoken so far of no others. Later on he will distinguish two great 
classes, both included in the Selection, of whom he has certain 
special things to say. But at present he has no division or dis- 
tinction. He may mean to include more: he can scarcely mean to 
include less than himself and the readers whom he addresses. 

It has been said that in the word ‘us’ we have ‘the language 
of charity’, which includes certain individuals whom a stricter use 
of terms would have excluded. That is to say, not all the members 
of all the Churches to whom the letter was to go were in fact 
included in the Divine Selection. 

To this we may reply: (1) Nowhere in the epistle does St Paul 
suggest that any individual among those whom he addresses either 
is or may be exciuded from this Selection. 

(2) Unworthy individuals there undoubtedly were: but his 
appeal to them is based on the very fact of their Selection by God: 
‘I beseech you, that ye walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye 
have been called’, 

The Old Testament helps us again here. Among the Selected 
People were many unworthy individuals. This unworthiness did 
not exclude them from the Divine Selection, On the contrary, the 
Prophets made their privileged position the ground of an appeal to 
them. 

Moreover, just as the Prophets looked more to the whole than 
to the parts, so St Paul is dominated by the thought of the whole, 





CALIFORNIA 
ey EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 27 


and of God’s purpose with the whole. It is a new Israel that 
Christ has founded—a People of privilege. We are apt so far to 
forget this, as to regard St Paul mainly as the Apostle of individu- 
ality. But in the destiny of the individual as an individual he shews 
strangely little interest—strangely, I say, in comparison with the 
prevailing thought of later times; though not strangely, in the 
light of his own past history as a member of a Selected People. 
We take it, then, that by the word ‘us’ St Paul means to 
include all those Christians to whom he intended his letter to come. 
It is reasonable to suppose further that he would have allowed his 
language to cover all members of the Christian Church every- 
where. 

The one doubt which may fairly be raised is whether the later 
phrase of v. 12, ‘we who have been the first to hope in Christ’, 
should be taken as limiting the meaning of ‘us’ in the earlier 
verses. This phrase we must discuss presently: but meanwhile it is 
enough to point out that the parallel passage in the Epistle to the 
Colossians, where some of the same statements are made (compare 
especially Eph. i 6, 7 with Col. i 13, 14), has no such limitation, 
and quite clearly includes the Gentiles to whom he was writing. 
We may therefore believe that here too the Gentile Christians are 
included, up to the point at which the Apostle definitely makes 
statements specially belonging to the Christian Jew. 

The aim of the Divine Selection is plainly stated in the words, 
‘that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love’. Thei 4 
phrase ‘in love’ must be joined with the preceding words, not with 
those that follow ; although the latter collocation has some ancient 
interpreters in its favour. For (1) the same phrase occurs five 
times more in the epistle (iii 17, iv 2, 15, 16, v 2), and always in 
the sense of the Christian virtue of love—not of the Divine love 
towards man: and (2) here it stands as the climax of the Divine 
intention. Love is the response for which the Divine grace looks ; 
and the proof that it is not bestowed in vain. On our side the 
result aimed at is ‘love’: just as on God’s side it is ‘the praise of 
the glory of His grace’. 


‘ Having fore-ordained us unto the adoption of sons through i 5 
 Fesus Christ unto Himself’, The sonship of Man to God is implied, 

but not expressed, in the Old Testament. In the light of the later 
revelation it is seen to be involved in the creation of Man in the Gen.i26f. 
Divine image, by which a relationship is established to which appeal Gen. ix 6 
can be made even after the Fall. In a more special sense God is a Jer. xxxig 
Father to Israel, and Israel is the son of God. But sonship in the Ex. iv 22 


28 


i5 


16 


vv. 3-6 


EXPOSITION OF THE [I 5,6 


completest sense could not be proclaimed before the manifestation 
of the Divine Son in the flesh. He is at once the ideal Man and 
the Image of God. In Him the sonship of Man to God finds its 
realisation. Those who have been ‘selected in Him’ are possessed 
of this sonship, not as of natural right, but as by adoption. Hence 
‘the adoption of sons’ is the distinctive privilege of the New 
Covenant in Christ. 

The doctrine of Adoption is not antagonistic to the doctrine of 
the universal sonship of Man to God. It is on the contrary in the 
closest relation to it. Itis the Divine method of its actualisation. 
The sonship of creation is through Christ, no less truly than the 
sonship of adoption. Man is created in Christ: but the Selected 
People are brought more immediately than others into relation with 
Christ, and through Christ with the Father. 

‘According to the good pleasure of His will’. Ultimately, the 
power that rules the universe is the will of God. ‘It pleased His 
will’: we cannot, and we need not, get behind that. 

‘To the praise of the glory of His grace’. This is the ordained 
issue: God’s free favour to Man is to be gloriously manifested, that 
it may be eternally praised. 

‘Grace’ is too great a word with St Paul to be mentioned and 
allowed to pass. It will, as we shall see, carry his thought further. 
But first he will emphasise the channel by which it reaches us: 
‘His grace, which He hath freely bestowed on us in the Beloved’. 
If ‘the Beloved’ is a Messianic title, yet it is not used here without 
a reference to its literal meaning. In the parallel passage in 
Col. i 13 we have ‘the Son of His love’. Just as in the Son, who 
is Son in a peculiar sense, we have the adoption of sons: so in the 
Beloved, who is loved with a peculiar love, the grace of God is 
graciously bestowed on us. 

To sum up wv. 3—6: The blessing, for which we bless God, is 
of a spiritual nature, in the heavenly sphere, in the exalted Christ. 
It is in accordance with an eternal choice, whereby God has 
selected us in Christ, Its goal, so far as we are concerned, is the 
fulness of all virtues, love. It includes an adoption through Jesus 
Christ to a Divine sonship. Its motive lies far back in the will of 
God. Its contemplated issue in the Divine counsel is that God’s 
grace, freely bestowed on us in His Well-beloved, should be gloriously 
manifested and eternally praised. 


It is noteworthy that up to this point there has been no 
reference of any kind to sin: nor, with the exception of a passing 
notice of the fact that it has been put out of the way, is there any 


I 6, 7] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


allusion to it in the whole of the remainder of this chapter. We 
are taken in these verses into the eternal counsels of God. Sin, 
here as elsewhere in St Paul’s teaching, appears as an interloper. 
It comes in to hinder the progress of the Divine Purpose; to check 
it, but not to change it. There is nothing to lead us to suppose 
that the grace of God comes to Man in Christ simply on account of a 
necessity introduced by sin. Sin indeed has served to magnify the 


29 


grace of God: ‘where sin hath abounded, grace hath yet more Rom. v 20 


abounded’. But the free favour which God has bestowed on the 
Selected People in Christ is a part of the eternal Purpose, prior to 
the entrance of sin. There is good reason to believe that the Incar- 
nation is not a mere consequence of the Fall, though the painful 
conditions of the Incarnation were the direct result of the Fall. 
And we may perhaps no less justly hold that the education of the 
human race by the method of Selection must likewise have been 
necessary, even if Man had not sinned at all. 

But the mention of ‘grace’ leads St Paul on to speak of the 
peculiar glory of grace, on which he has so often dwelt. Grace is 
above all grace in baffling sin. 


‘In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness i 7 


of trespasses’, We must again bear in mind St Paul’s Jewish 
training, if we are to understand his thought. This is especially 
necessary, where, as here, the terms which he employs have become 
very familiar to us. 

‘ Redemption’. God is often spoken of in the Old Testament as 
the Redeemer of His People Israel. The first great Redemption, 
typical of all the rest and frequently referred to as such by the 
Prophets, was the emancipation of Israel from the Egyptian bondage. 
With this the history of Israel, as a People, and not now a family 
merely, began. A new Redemption, or Emancipation, initiates the 
history of the New People. 

‘Through His blood’. These words would be scarcely intel- 
ligible if we had not the Old Testament. To the Jewish mind 
‘blood’ was not merely—nor even chiefly—the life-current flowing 
in the veins of the living: it was especially the life poured out in 
death; and yet more particularly in its religious aspect it was 
the symbol of sacrificial death. The passover lamb whose blood 
was sprinkled on the lintel and doorposts was the most striking 
feature of the Redemption from Egypt. The sacrificial blood of the 


Gen. iv 10 


Mosaic ritual was the condition of the remission of sins: ‘ without Heb. ix 22 


blood-shedding no forgiveness takes place’, 
The New Covenant is the consummation of the Old. The 


30 


17 


i8 


EXPOSITION OF THE [I 7—9 


Redemption is through the blood of Christ, and it includes ‘the 
Sorgwveness of trespasses’. 

‘ According to the riches of His grace’. The mention of ‘grace’ 
had led to the thought of its triumph over sin: and this in turn 
leads back to a further and fuller mention of ‘ grace’. 

‘His grace which He hath made to abound towards us in all 
wisdom and prudence’. The last words help to define the grace 
in another way: among its consequences for us are ‘wisdom and 
prudence’. Wisdom is the knowledge which sees into the heart 
of things, which knows them as they really are. Prudence is 
the understanding which leads to right action. Wisdom, as it is 
set before us in the Sapiential books of the Old Testament, includes 
both these ideas: but with St Paul Wisdom belongs specially to 
the region of the Mystery and its Revelation. . 

The great stress laid by St Paul on Wisdom in his later letters 
calls for some notice. In writing to the Corinthians at an earlier 
period he had found it necessary to check their enthusiasm about 
what they called Wisdom—an intellectual subtlety which bred 
conceit in individuals and, as a consequence, divisions in the 
Christian Society. He had refused to minister to their appetite for 
this kind of mental entertainment. He contrasted their anxiety for 
Wisdom with the plainness of his preaching. He was forced into 
an extreme position: he would not communicate to them in their 
carnal state of division and strife his own knowledge of the deeper 
things of God. But at the same time he declared that he had 
a Wisdom which belonged not to babes, but to grown men}. 
And it is this Wisdom which we have in the present Epistle. It 


1 Cor. ii 7 deals as St Paul had said with ‘a mystery’: it is a Wisdom long 


ig 


hidden but now revealed. 


‘Having made known to us the mystery of His will’. This 
together with what follows, to the end of v. 10, is explanatory of 
the preceding statement. ‘God hath made grace to abound toward 
us in all wisdom and prudence, in that He hath made known to us 
the mystery of His will’. 

‘The mystery’ or ‘secret’, It is tempting to regard St Paul’s 
employment of the word ‘mystery’ as one of the instances in which 
he has borrowed a term from popular Greek phraseology and has 
lifted it into the highest region of thought. The word was every- 
where current in the Greek religious world. When the old national 


1 Contrast 1 Cor. ii 1, 2 with ib. this subject (Prolegg. to Romans and 
ii 6, 7: and see Dr Hort’s words on Lphesians, 180 ff.). 


I 9] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


spirit died out in Greece, the national religious life died with it, and 
the ancient national cults lost their hold on the people. About the 
same time there came into prominence all over the Greek world 
another form of religious worship, not so much public and national 
as private and individualistic. It had many shapes, and borrowed 
much from Eastern sources. Its aim was the purification of indi- 
vidual lives ; and its methods were (1) the promise of a future life, 
and (2) the institution of rites of purification followed by initiation 
into a secret religious lore. With some of the mysteries much that 
was abominable was connected: but the ideals which some at least 
of them proclaimed were lofty. The true secret of divine things 
could only be revealed to those who passed through long stages of 
purification, and who pledged themselves never to disclose ‘the 
mysteries’ which they had been taught. 

The ‘mystery’, of which St Paul speaks, is the secret of God’s 
dealing with the world: and it is a secret which is revealed to such 
as have been specially prepared to receive it. But here—so far at 
any rate as St Paul’s writings are concerned'—the parallel with 
the Greek mysteries ends. For the Secret of God has been pub- 
lished in Christ. There is now no bar to its declaration. St Paul 
has been appointed a steward of it, to expound it as containing the 
interpretation of all human life. 

As a matter of fact the word has come to St Paul from a wholly 
different source. We now know that it was used of secrets which 
belong to God and are revealed by Him to men, not only in the 
Book of Daniel, but also in a book which presents many parallels to 
the Book of Daniel, and which just failed, when that book just 
succeeded, in obtaining a place within the Jewish canon. Portions 
of the long lost Greek of the Book of Enoch have recently been 
restored to us, and we find that the word ‘mystery’ is used in 
it again and again of divine secrets which have rightly or wrongly 
come to the knowledge of men. And even apart from this particu- 
lar book, we have ample evidence for this usage in the Greek-speak- 
ing circles of Judaism. The word, with its correlative ‘revelation’, 
was at hand in the region of the Apostle’s own Jewish training, 
and we need not seek a heathen origin for his use of it’. 


‘ According to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Him, 
for dispensation in the fulness of the times, io gather up in one all 


1 With later parallels to the Greek 2 See the detached note on the 
mysteries in the rites of the Christian meaning of pvoripiov. 
Church we are not here concerned. 


31 


32 


ili 3 


EXPOSITION OF THE [I 10 


things an Christ. This is a description in the broadest terms of 
the scope and contents of the Divine Secret. 

‘For dispensation in the fulness of the times’. The similar 
language of iii 9 is the best comment on this passage. The Apostle 
declares there that it is his mission to shew ‘what is the dispensation 
of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who 
created all things’. The Creator of the universe has a Purpose in 
regard to it—‘an eternal purpose which He hath purposed in Christ 
Jesus our Lord’. The secret of it has been hidden in God until 
now. The ‘dispensation’ or ‘working out’ of that secret Purpose 
is a matter on which St Paul claims to speak by revelation. 

‘ Dispensation’ is here used in its wider sense, not of household 
management, which is its primary meaning, but of carrying into 
effect a design. The word must be taken with the foregoing phrase 
‘the mystery of His will’; and we may paraphrase, ‘to carry it out 
in the fulness of the times’. The thought is not of ‘a Dispensation ’, 
as though one of several Dispensations: but simply of the ‘ carrying 
out’ of the secret Purpose of God. 

That secret Purpose is summarised in the words, ‘to gather up 
in one all things in Christ’. 

‘To gather up im one’. <As the total is the result of the 
addition of all the separate factors, as the summary presents in 
one view the details of a complicated argument—these are the 
metaphors suggested by the Apostle’s word—so in the Divine 
counsels Christ is the Sum of all things. 

‘All things’. ‘The definite article of the Gk cannot be 
represented in English: but it helps to give the idea that ‘all 
things’ are regarded as a whole, as when we speak of ‘the 
universe’; compare Col. i 17 and Heb. i 3. 

‘In Christ’. The Greek has the definite article here also: for 
the stress is laid not on the individual personality, but rather on the 
Messianic office. The Messiah summed up the Ancient People: 
St Paul proclaims that He sums up the Universe. 

The contrast between ‘the one’ and ‘the many’ was the 
foundation of most of the early Greek philosophical systems. 
‘The many ’—the variety of objects of sense—was the result of 
a breaking up of the primal ‘one’. ‘The many’ constituted im- 
perfection: ‘the one’ was the ideal perfection. The philosopher 
could look beyond ‘the many’ to ‘the one’—the absolute and alone 
existent ‘one’. 

There is something akin to this here. The variety of the 
universe, with its discordances and confusions, has a principle 
of unity. ‘In Christ’, says St Paul in Col. i 17, ‘all things consist’ ; 


I ro] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 33 


in Him, that is, they have their principle of cohesion and unity: 

even as ‘through Him and unto Him they have been created’. Col. i 16 
Tf confusion has entered, it is not of the nature of things, and it is 

not to be eternal. In the issue the true unity will be asserted and 
manifested. ‘The mystery of the will of God’ is the Divine 
determination ‘to gather up in one all things in Christ’. 


St Paul has thus been led on past the method of God’s working 
to the issue of God’s working. He has told us the purpose of the 
Divine Selection. It is not simply, or mainly, the blessing of the 
Selected People. It is the blessing of the Universe. 
It is worth while to note how entirely this is in harmony with 
the lesson of the Old Testament, though it far transcends that 
earlier teaching. Abraham was chosen for peculiar blessing: but 
at the moment of his call it was said to him: ‘in thee shall all Gen. xii 3 
families of the earth be blessed’. And to take but two of the later 
utterances, we may recall the warning of Ezekiel: ‘I do not this Ezek. 
for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for Mine holy name’s sake... ***¥i 22 f. 
and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord’; and the familiar 
words of the Psalm: ‘O let the nations rejoice and be glad: for Ps, Ixvii. 
Thou shalt judge the folk [the chosen people] righteously, and + 7 
govern the nations upon earth...God shall bless us: and all the 
ends of the earth shall fear Him’. 
It was the failure to recognise this mission to bless the whole 
world that was the ‘great refusal’ of Judaism. A like failure to 
grasp the truth that it is the mission of Christianity to sanctify the 
whole of human experience has blighted the Church of Christ again 
and again. Out of that failure it is the purpose of St Paul’s greatest. 
epistle to lift us to-day. 
For the Christian hope is an unbounded hope of universal good. 
It has two stages of its realisation, an intermediate and a final 
stage: the intermediate stage is the hope of blessing for the Selected 
People; the final stage is the hope of blessing for the Universe— 
‘the gathering up in one of all things in Christ, things in heaven 
and things upon the earth’. 


Without attempting to analyse this burst of living praise, we vv. 3—10 
yet may notice that there is a certain orderliness in the Apostle’s 
enthusiasm. The fulness of ‘spiritual blessing’ of v. 3 is expounded 
under five great heads: Election, v. 4; Adoption, v. 5; Redemp- 
tion, v. 7; Wisdom, v. 8; Consummation, v. Io. 

We might have expected him at last to stay his pen. He has 
reached forward and upward to the sublimest exposition ever framed 


EPHES,” 3 


34 EXPOSITION OF THE [I 11, 12 


of the ultimate Purpose of God. His doxology might seem to have 
gained its fitting close. But St Paul is always intensely practical, 
and at once he is back with his readers in the actual world. Jew 
and Gentile are among the obstinate facts of his day. May it not 
be thought by some that he has been painting all along the glowing 
picture of the Jew’s hope in his Jewish Messiah? 

It is plain, at any rate, that he desires at once to recognise the 
place of Jew and Gentile alike in the new economy. So without a 

irzi—13__ break he proceeds: ‘im Him, in whom also we have been chosen as 
God’s portion, having been foreordained...that we should be to the 
praise of His glory, who have been the first to hope in Christ; in 
whom ye also...’. 

‘We have been chosen as God’s portion’; that is, assigned by God 
to Himself as His own lot and portion. Underneath the phrase 
lies the thought of Israel’s peculiar position among the nations. 
Compare the words of the great song in Deut. xxxii 8 ff.: 

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, 

When He separated the children of men, 

He set the bounds of the peoples 

According to the number of the children of Israel. 

For the Lord’s portion is His people; 

Jacob is the lot of His inheritance. 

He found him in a desert land, 

And in the waste howling wilderness ; 

He compassed him about, He cared for him, 

He kept him as the apple of His eye. 


The prophet Zechariah foresaw the realisation of this once more in 
Zech. iir2 the future: ‘The Lord shall inherit Judah as His portion in the 
holy land, and shall yet choose Jerusalem’. 
To St Paul the fulfilment has come. In the dispensation of 
the mystery of God’s will, he says, this peculiar position is ours: 
ia ‘we have been chosen as God’s portion, having been foreordained 
according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things according 
to the counsel of His will’. 


Thus far no word of limitation has occurred: but now at once 


ix the first of two classes is marked out: ‘that we should be to the 
praise of His glory’—we, ‘who have been the first to hope im 
Christ’. 


The limiting phrase is capable of two explanations. It seems 
most natural to interpret it of the Christian Jews,—those members 
of the Jewish people who have recognised Jesus as their Messiah. 
Elsewhere the Apostle lays stress on the fact that Christ was first 


113] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 35 


preached to and accepted by Jews. The Jewish Christian had a 
distinct priority in time: indeed the first stage of the Christian 
Church was a strictly Jewish stage. St Paul recognises this, 
though he hastens at once to emphasise the inclusion of the Gentile 
Christians. It is ‘to the Jew first’—but only ‘first’: ‘to the Jew Rom. ii 10 
first, and to the Greek; for there is no respect of persons with God’. 

But it is also possible to render, ‘who aforetime hoped in the 
Christ’, and to refer the words to the Jewish people as such. This 
would be in harmony with such an expression as ‘For the hope of Acts xxviii 
Israel I am bound with this chain’. a 

In either case, if for a moment he points to the Jewish priority, 
it is only as a priority in time; and his very object in mentioning it 
is to place beyond all question the fact that the Gentiles are no 
less certainly chosen of God. 

‘In whom ye also’. The main verb of this sentence is not easy i 13 
to find. It can hardly be ‘ye have been chosen as (God’s) portion’, 
supplied out of the former sentence: for the assignment to God is 
a part of the eternal purpose in Christ, and not a consequence of 
‘hearing’ and ‘believing’. It might be ‘ye hope’, supplied out of 
the preceding participle. But it is simpler to regard the sentence 
as broken, and taken up again with the words ‘in whom also’. 

‘In whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel 
of your salvation,—in whom also having believed, ye have been 
sealed with the holy Spirit of promise’. To the Jew came the 
message first: but to you it came as well. You too heard ‘the 
word of the truth’, the good news of a salvation which was yours 
as well as theirs. You heard, you believed; and, as if to remove all 
question and uncertainty, God set His seal on you. The order of 
the words in the original is striking: ‘Ye were sealed with the 
Spirit of the promise, the Holy (Spirit)’. Here again we have the 
expansion of an Old Testament thought. ‘To Abraham and his Gal. iii 16 
seed were the promises made’: but the ultimate purpose of God 
was ‘that upon the Gentiles should come the blessing of Abraham Gal. iii 14 
in Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit 
through faith’. ‘To you is the promise (of the Holy Spirit)’, says Acts ii 39 
St Peter on the Day of Pentecost, ‘and to your children, and to all 
that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call’. And 
when the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles at Caesarea he cried: 
‘Can any forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, Acts x 47 
seeing that they have received the Holy Spirit, even as we?’ 

The gift of the Spirit of the Promise was not only God’s 
authentication of the Gentile converts at the time, but their foretaste 
and their security of the fulness of blessing in the future, This is 


«mee 


36 


iv 30 


iii 6 


Jer. xiii 11 


i 15—23 


EXPOSITION OF THE [I 14, 15 


expressed in two ways. First, by a metaphor from mercantile life. 
The Holy Spirit thus given is ‘the earnest of our inheritance’. The 
word arrhabén means, not a ‘pledge’ deposited for a time and ulti- 
mately to be claimed back, but an ‘earnest’, an instalment paid at 
once as a proof of the bona fides of the bargain. It is an actual 
portion of the whole which is hereafter to be paid in full. Secondly, 
‘ye have been sealed’, says the Apostle, ‘wnto the redemption of 
God’s own possession’. So later on, speaking of the Holy Spirit, 
he says: ‘in whom ye have been sealed unto the day of redemption’, 
The full emancipation of the People of God is still in the future. 

‘The redemption of God’s own possession’ is that ultimate 
emancipation by which God shall claim us finally as His ‘peculiar 
treasure.’ So the Septuagint rendered Mal. iii 17 ‘They shall be 
to me for a possession, saith the Lord of Hosts, in that day which 
I make’; comp. 1 Pet. ii 9, ‘a people for God’s own possession’. 

It is noteworthy that St Paul is careful to employ in regard to 
the Gentiles the very terms—‘ promise’, ‘inheritance’, ‘ emancipa- 
tion’, ‘possession’—which were the familiar descriptions of the 
peculiar privilege of Israel. Moreover in the phrase ‘our inherit- 
ance’ he has suddenly changed back again from the second person 
to the first; thereby intimating that Jews and Gentiles are, to 
use a phrase which occurs later on, ‘co-heirs and concorporate and 
co-partakers of the promise’. 

At last the great doxology comes to its close with the repetition 
for the third time of the refrain, ‘to the praise of His glory’—words 
which recall to us the unfulfilled destiny of Israel, ‘that they might 
be unto Me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for 
a glory: but they would not hear’, 


*s WHEREFORE I also, having heard of your faith in the 
Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, “cease not to 
give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; 
“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, 
may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation 
in the knowledge of Him; “the eyes of your heart being 
enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of His calling, 
what the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 
*and what the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward 
who believe, according to the working of the might of His 
strength, which He hath wrought im Christ, in that He 
hath raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right 


I 15, 16] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


hand in the heavenly places, *above every principality and 
authority and power and dominion, and every name that is 
named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to 
come; *and He hath put all things under His feet; and Him 
hath He given to be head over all things to the church, * which 
is His body, the fulness of Him who all in all is being fulfilled. 


From doxology the Apostle passes to prayer. His prayer is 
introduced by expressions of thanksgiving, and it presently passes 
into a description of the supreme exaltation of the heavenly Christ, 
and of us in Him—for, though it is convenient to make a pause at 
the end of c. i, there is in fact no break at all until we reach ii 11. 


‘Having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and love unto alli 15 
the saints’, It is St Paul’s habit to open his epistles with words of 
thanksgiving and prayer; and as a rule his thanksgiving makes 
special reference to the ‘faith’ of those to whom he writes: some- 
times with ‘faith’ he couples ‘love’; and sometimes he completes 
the trinity of Christian graces by a mention of ‘hope’. Thus: 

(1) Rom. i 8: that your faith is spoken of throughout the 
whole world. 

(2) 2 Thess. i 3: because that your faith groweth exceedingly, 
and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth. 

Philem. 5: hearing of thy love and faith which thou hast 
toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints. 

(3) x Thess. i 3: remembering without ceasing your work of 
faith and labour of love and patience of hope, etc. 

Col. i 4, 5: having heard of your fazth in Christ Jesus, and 
the love which ye have toward all the saints, because of the 
hope, etc. 


‘I cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you m my i 16 
prayers’. This ‘making mention’ is a frequent term in St Paul’s 
epistles (1 Thess. i 2, Rom. i 9, Philem. 4). We might suppose it to 
be a peculiarly Christian expression. ’ But, like some other phrases 
in St Paul, it is an old expression of the religious life of the people, 
lifted up to its highest use. Thus in a papyrus letter in the British 
Museum, written in Egypt by a sister to her brother and dated 
July 24, 172 B.c., we read: ‘I continue praying to the gods for 
your welfare. I am well myself, and so is the child, and all in the 
house, continually making mention of you [i.e no doubt, ‘in 
prayer’]. When I got your letter, immediately I thanked the gods 
for your welfare...’. Here are the very terms: ‘making mention’ 


38 


i17, 18 


2 Cor. i 3; 
Acts vii 2; 
1 Cor. ii 8; 
. das. iit 


Luke xi 13 


John xiv 
26, xvi 13 


EXPOSITION OF THE [I 16—18 


and ‘I thanked the gods’. And the language of many other letters 
bears this out%. A frequently occurring phrase is, for example, 
this: ‘I make thy reverence to our lord Serapis’, St Paul, then, 
instead of praying to ‘our lord Serapis’, makes his request to ‘the 
God of our Lord Jesus Christ’: instead of a conventional prayer 
for their health and welfare, he prays for their spiritual enlighten- 
ment: and so what to others might have been a mere formula of 
correspondence becomes with him a vehicle of the highest thought 
of his epistle. 

His prayer is this: ‘that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
Father of glory, may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom...that ye 
may know...’. 

It is to be noted that for the sake of emphasis the Apostle has 
resolved the combined title of v. 3, ‘the God and Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ’. His prayer is directed to Him who is not only 
the Father of our Lord, but also our Father in the heavenly glory. 

With the title ‘the Father of glory’ we may compare on the one 
hand ‘the Father of mercies’; and on the other, ‘the God of 
glory’, ‘the Lord of glory’, and the remarkable expression of 
St James ‘our Lord Jesus Christ of glory’. Moreover, when after 
a long break the Apostle takes up his prayer again in iii 14, 
we find another emphatic expression: ‘I bow my knees to the 
Father, of whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named’— 
an expression which may help to interpret ‘the Father of glory’ in 
this place. 

The prayer takes the form of a single definite request for a 
definite end: that ‘the Father...may give unto you the Spirit of 
uisdom...that ye may know’. The words are closely parallel to 
our Lord’s promise as given by St Luke: ‘The Father...will give 
the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him’. 

For note that it is a Spirit, that St Paul prays for. It is not 
an attitude of mind, as when we speak of ‘a teachable spirit’. In 
the New Testament the word ‘spirit’ is used in its strictest sense. 
All true wisdom comes from a Spirit, who dwells in us and teaches 
us. It is a teaching Spirit, rather than a teachable spirit, which 
the Apostle asks that they may have. 

In St John’s Gospel the personality of the Divine Teacher is 
strongly emphasised: ‘The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send 
in My name, He will teach you all things’; ‘When He, the Spirit 
of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth’. There in the 
Greek we have the definite article (76 avedua ris adnbeias): here it 
is absent (rvedya codias). To attempt to make a distinction by 

1 See the detached note on current epistolary phrases. 


¥ 27,118) EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


inserting the indefinite article in English would perhaps be to go 
further than is warranted. There is, after all, but one ‘ Spirit of 
wisdom’ that can teach us. 

But a distinction may often be rightly drawn in the New 
Testament between the usage of the word with the definite article 
and its usage without it. With the article, very generally, the 
word indicates the personal Holy Spirit; while without it some 
special manifestation or bestowal of the Holy Spirit is signified. 
And this latter is clearly meant here. <A special gift of the Spirit 
for a special purpose is the subject of St Paul’s request. 

The Spirit thus specially given will make them wise: He will 
come as the ‘Spirit of wisdom’. Yet more, as the ‘Spirit of 
revelation’ He will lift the veil, and shew them the secret of God. 

‘Revelation’—‘apocalypse’, or ‘unveiling’—is a word which is 
naturally used where any ‘mystery’ or ‘secret’ is in question. 
The Divine Secret needs a Divine Unveiling. So St Paul declares 
of himself: ‘by apocalypse was the mystery’—by revelation was iii 3 
the secret—‘made known unto me’. He prays that it may be so 
for those to whom he writes. In one sense it is true that a secret 
once published is thereafter but ‘an open secret’. But it is no less 
true that the Christian ‘mystery’ demands for its unveiling the 
perpetual intervention of the ‘Spirit of apocalypse’. 

‘In the knowledge of Him’: i.e. of ‘the God of our Lord Jesus i 17 
Christ, the Father of glory’: as such must He be recognised and 
known. And to this end ‘the eyes of their heart’ must be opened i 18 
and filled with light. The Divine illumination is no mere intellec- 
tual process: it begins with the heart, the seat of the affections 


and the will’. 


1 A striking illustration of the lan- 
guage of St Paul in this passage is to 
be found in 2 (4) Esdras xiv 22, 25: 
‘If I have found grace before thee, 
send the Holy Ghost (or, ‘a holy 
spirit’) into me, and I shall write all 
that hath been done in the world 
since the beginning...And he answered 
me,...I shall light a candle of under- 
standing in thine heart, which shall 
not be put out, till the things be per- 
formed which thou shalt begin to 
write’. 

In this book, which is perhaps al- 
most contemporary with St Paul, there 
are two or three other verbal parallels 
which are worth noticing here: with 


‘the fulness of the times’ compare 2 (4) 
Esdr. iv. 37, ‘By measure hath He 
measured the times, and by number 
hath He numbered the times; and He 
doth not move nor stir them, until 
the said measure be fulfilled’: with 
‘the mystery’ compare xii 36, ‘Thou 
only hast been made meet to know 
this secret of the Highest’ (comp. 
v. 38, x 38, xiv 5 ‘the secrets of the 
times’): with ‘ye were sealed’ com- 
pare perhaps vi 5, ‘Before they were 
sealed that have gathered faith for 
a treasure,’ and x 23, ‘And, which 
is the greatest [sorrow] of all, the seal 
of Sion hath now lost her honour’, 
See also below, p. 48. 


40 


EXPOSITION OF THE [I 18—20 


‘That ye may know’. A threefold knowledge, embracing all 
eternity—the past, the future, and not least the present. 

(1) ‘ What is the hope of His calling’. Note that St Paul does 
not say ‘the hope of your calling’, ie. His calling of you: though 
that is included. The expression is wider: it is universal. We are 
taken back, as in the earlier verses of the chapter, to the great past 
of eternity, before the foundations of the world were laid. It is 
‘His calling’, in the fullest sense, that we need to understand. 
That ‘calling’ involves a ‘hope’, and we must learn to know 
what that hope is. It is a certain hope: for it rests on the very 
fact that the calling is God’s calling, and no weak wish of ours 


1Thes.v24 for better things. ‘Faithful is He that calleth you, who also will 


Deut. 
Xxxli 9 


ig 


i19, 20 


do it’. 

(2) ‘What the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the 
saints’. This too they must know: the glory of the eternal future. 
Again, it is not ‘of your inheritance ’—but something grander far. 
It is ‘His inheritance’; of which they are but a tiny, though a 
necessary, part. ‘The Lord’s portion is His people: Jacob is the 
lot of His inheritance’. 

(3) ‘And what the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward 
who belteve’. Not merely God’s calling in the past, and God’s 
inheritance in the future; but also God’s power in the present. Of 
the first two he has said much already: on the third he will now 
enlarge. And so he is led on, as it were by a word, to a vast 
expansion of his thought. 

This power is an extraordinary, a supernatural power. It is the 
very power that has raised Christ from the dead and seated Him at 
God’s right hand, and that makes Him now supreme over the uni- 
verse. This is the power that goes forth ‘to us-ward who believe’. 

‘According to the working of the might of His strength, which 
He hath wrought in Christ’. We have no words that fully represent 
the original of the phrase, ‘the working...which He hath wrought’. 
Both the noun and the verb are emphatic in themselves, and 
St Paul seldom employs them, except where he is speaking of some 
Divine activity’. ‘Might’, again, is an emphatic word, never used 
of mere human power in the New Testament. St Paul heaps word 
upon word (dvvapis, évépyea, xparos, icxvs) in his determination to 
emphasise the power of God that is at work in the lives of ‘them 
that believe’. 

‘In that He hath raised Him from the dead’. Compare Rom. 
viii 11, ‘If the Spirit of Him that raised Jesus from the dead 
dwelleth in you...’ 


1 See the detached note on évepyeiv and its cognates. 


I 20—23] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 4I 


‘And set Him at His right hand in the heavenly places’. The 
resurrection is a step in the path of exaltation. 

‘Above every principality and authority and power and dominion’. i 21 
These titles St Paul uses as denoting familiar distinctions of spiritual 
forces. We have another list in Col. i 16: ‘Whether thrones or 
dominions or principalities or authorities’, Originally terms of 
Jewish speculation, they came in after times to play a large part in 
Christian thought. The Apostle’s purpose in mentioning them, 
both here and in the Epistle to the Colossians, is to emphasise the 
exaltation of Christ above them all. He closes the list with ‘every 
name that is named’, i.e. every title or dignity that has been or‘can 
be given as a designation of majesty. Compare Phil. ii 9, ‘the 
Name which is above every name’. 

That spiritual potencies are in the Apostle’s mind is clear from 
the phrase ‘in the heavenly sphere’, as we have already seen (above, 
on v. 3); and also from the added words ‘not only in this world 
(or age), but also in that which is to come’. 

Above all that anywhere is, anywhere can be—above all 
grades of dignity, real or imagined, good or evil, present or to 
come—the mighty power of God has exalted and enthroned the 
Christ. 

‘And He hath put all things under His feet’. Thus Christ has i 22 
fulfilled in His own person the destiny of man: ‘Let them have Gen. i 26 
dominion...’.. The actual words are derived from the eighth Psalm: 
‘What is man that Thou art mindful of him, and the son of man Ps. viii 4,6 
that Thou visitest him?...Thou hast put all things under his feet’. 

The best comment is Heb. ii 6—g. 

‘And Him hath He given to be head over all things to the church, i 22, 23 
which is His body’. When St Paul combats the spirit of jealousy 
and division in the Corinthian Church, he works out in detail the 
metaphor of the Body and its several parts. But he does not there 
speak of Christ as the Head. For not only does he point out the 
absurdity of the head’s saying to the feet, I have no need of you; 
but he also refers to the seeing, the hearing and the smelling, to 
which he could not well have alluded as separate functions, had he 
been thinking of Christ as the head. Indeed in that great passage 
Christ has, if possible, a more impressive position still: He is no 
part, but rather the whole of which the various members are parts ; 

‘for as the body is one and hath many members, and all the mem- 1 Cor. xii 
bers of the body being many are one body; so also is the Christ’, 7? 

This is in exact correspondence with the image employed by our 

Lord Himself: ‘I am the Vine, ye are the branches’. That is to John xv 
say, not ‘I am the trunk of the vine, and ye the branches growing 


42 


v 22 ff. 


Gen. ii 24; 
Matt. xix 5 
Eph. v 32 


1 Cor. xi 3 


i 23 


EXPOSITION OF THE [I 23 


out of the trunk’; but rather, ‘I am the living whole, ye are the 
parts whose life is a life dependent on the whole’. 

Here however the Apostle approaches the consideration of 
Christ’s relation to the Church from a different side, and his lan- 
guage differs accordingly. He has begun with the exalted Christ ; 
and he has been led on to declare that the relation of the exalted 
Christ to His Church is that of the head to the body. 

It is interesting to observe that later on, when he comes to ex- 
pound the details of human relationship as based on eternal truths, 
he says in the first place, ‘Let wives be subject to their own hus- 
bands as to the Lord; because the husband is head of the wife, as 
also Christ is head of the Church, Himself being saviour of the 
body’: but then, turning to the husbands, he drops the metaphor 
of headship, and bids them love their wives as their own bodies, 
following again the example of Christ in relation to His Church; 
and he cites the ideal of marriage as proclaimed at the creation of 
man, ‘the twain shall become one flesh’, Not headship here, but 
identity, is the relation in view. ‘This mystery’, he adds, ‘is a 
mighty one: but I speak (it) with reference to Christ and to the 
Church’. 

Thus the two conceptions involve to St Paul’s mind no inherent 
contradiction. He passes easily from one to the other. Each in 
turn serves to bring out some side of the truth. 

Nor may we say that the headship of Christ is a new concep- 
tion, belonging only to the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the 
Colossians. For in the same Epistle to the Corinthians in which 
he regards Christ as the whole Body of which Christians are the 
parts, he also says, ‘I would have you know that the head of every 
man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man (ie. her 
husband), and the head of Christ is God’. This is not quite the 
same thought as we have here; but it is closely parallel. 


We now come to what is perhaps the most remarkable expres- 
sion in the whole epistle. It is the phrase in which St Paul 
further describes the Church, which he has just declared to be 
Christ’s Body, as ‘the fulness of Him who all in all is being 
fulfilled’. 

When the Apostle thus speaks of the Church as the pleroma 
or fulness? of the Christ, and in the same breath speaks of the 
Christ as ‘being fulfilled’, he would appear to mean that in some 
mysterious sense the Church is that without which the Christ is 


1 Eph. i 22, iv 15, v 23; Col. i 18, ii 10, 19. 
2 See the detached note on md7jpwua. 


I 23] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


not complete, but with which He is or will be complete. That 
is to say, he looks upon the Christ as in a sense waiting for 
completeness, and destined in the purpose of God to find com- 
pleteness in the Church. 

This is a somewhat startling thought. Are we justified in 
thus giving to St Paul’s language what appears to be its obvious 
meaning ? 

1. First, let us pay attention to the metaphor which has just 
been employed, and which leads directly up to this statement. 
Christ is the Head of the Church, which is His Body. Now, is 
ib not true that in a certain sense the body is the pleroma or 
fulness of the head? Is the head complete without the body? 
Can we even think of a head as performing its functions without 
a body? In the sense then in which the body is the fulness 
or completion of the head, it is clear that St Paul can speak 
of the Church as the fulness or completion of the Christ. 

Even now, in the imperfect stage of the Church, we can see 
that this is true. The Church is that through which Christ lives 
on and works on here below on earth. Jesus, the Christ incar- 
nate, is no longer on earth as He was. His feet and hands no 
longer move and work in our midst, as once they moved and 
wrought in Palestine. But St Paul affirms that He is not without 
feet and hands on earth: the Church is His Body. Through the 
Church, which St Paul refuses to think of as something separate 
from Him, He still lives and moves among men’. 

2. But, further, although he may make havoc of his meta 
phors, St Paul will never let us forget that the relation of the 
Church to Christ is something even closer than that of a body 
to its head. In the present passage he has been describing the 
exalted Christ; and he asks, How does He in His supreme posi- 
tion of authority stand to the Church? He stands as Head to 
the Body. But this is never all the truth; and if we bear in 
mind St Paul’s further conception, in accordance with which the 
whole—Head and Body together—is the Christ, we get yet further 
help in our interpretation of the statement that the Church is the 
pleroma of the Christ. For it is plainer than ever that without 
the Church the Christ is incomplete: and as the Church grows 
towards completion, the Christ grows towards completion; the 
Christ, who in the Divine purpose must be ‘all in all’, ‘the Christ’ 
—if we may so use the language of our own great poet—‘ that 
is to be’. 

3. Again, this conception illuminates and in turn receives 


1 See the quotation from Clement of Alexandria on p. 140. 


43 


1 Cor, xii 
12 


Col, iii rr 


Col. i 24 


EXPOSITION OF THE [I 23 


light from a remarkable passage in the Epistle to the Colossians. 
St Paul is there speaking of his own sufferings: he can even re- 
joice in them, he tells us. If the Church and the Christ are 
one, the suffering of the Church and the suffering of the Christ 
are also one. The Christ, then, has not suffered all that He is 
destined to suffer; for He goes on suffering in the sufferings of 
the Church. These sufferings of the Church have fallen with 
special heaviness on St Paul. He is filling up something of what 
is still to be filled up, if the sufferings are to be complete. So 
he says: ‘Now I rejoice in my sufferings on your behalf, and fill 
up in your stead the remainder (literally, ‘the deficits’) of the 
sufferings of the Christ in my flesh, on behalf of His Body, 
which is the Church’. Thus then the Church, the completion of 
the Christ, is destined to complete His sufferings; and St Paul 
rejoices that as a member of the Church he is allowed by God 
to do a large share of this in his own person on the Church’s 
behalf. The thought is astonishing; it could never have occurred 
to a less generous spirit than St Paul’s. It is of value to us 
here, as helping to show in one special direction how to St Paul’s 
mind the Christ in a true sense still waited for completion, end 
would find that completion only in the Church. 


St Paul, then, thinks of the Christ as in some sense still in- 
complete, and as moving towards completeness. The conception is 
difficult and mysterious no doubt; but the Apostle has given us 
abundant warning earlier in the epistle that he is dealing with 
no ordinary themes. He has already told us that the purpose 
of God is ‘to gather up in one all things in the Christ’. Until 
that great purpose is fully achieved, the Christ is not yet all 
that the Divine wisdom has determined that He shall be. He 
still waits for His completeness, His fulfilment. As that is 
being gradually worked out, the Christ is being completed, ‘being 
Sulfilled, 

By way of enhancing this ultimate completeness St Paul in- 
serts the adverbial phrase ‘all in all’, or, more literally, ‘all 
(things) in all (things)’, We feel its force the more when we 
read the whole context, and observe that it comes as a climax 
after two previous declarations of supremacy over ‘all things’: 
‘He hath put all things under His feet; and Him hath He 
given to be head over all things to the Church, which is His 
Body, the fulness of Him who all in all is being fulfilled’, And 
indeed immediately before this we read, ‘above every principality 
...and every name’. All conceivable fulness, a completeness which 


1 23) 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


sums up the universe, is predicated of the Christ as the issue of 


the Divine purpose. 


‘Through the Church’, as the Apostle will declare yet more iii 10 
explicitly further on, this Divine purpose is being worked out 


The 


Head finds completeness in the Body: the Church is the completion 
of the Christ: for the Christ is being ‘all in all fulfilled’, is moving 
towards a completeness absolute and all-inclusive }. 


1 It may be well here to note that 
the three great Versions of antiquity 
support the rendering of the pas- 
sage which is here given. The Latin 
Church, the early Syrian Church, and 
the Egyptian Church so understood 
the words: see the commentary ad 
loc. ‘ 

Of the Greek commentators two 
may be here quoted. 

Origen says (Cramer, Catena in 
Ephes. pp. 133 ff.; comp. Jerome 
ad loc.) : 

‘‘Now, we desire to know in what 
way the Church, being the Body of 
Christ, is the fulness of Him who all 
in all is being fulfilled ; and why it is 
not said ‘of Him who filleth (r\7- 
podyros) all in all,’ but who is Himself 
‘filled’ (or ‘fulfilled,’ sdnpovpévov) : 
for it will seem as though it would 
have been more naturally said that 
Christ was He who filleth, and not He 
who is filled. For He Himself not 
only is the fulness of the Law, but 
also is of all fulnesses ever the fulness, 
since nothing comes to be full apart 
from Him. See, then, if this be not 
the answer; that inasmuch as, for the 
close relation and fellowship of the 
Son with reasonable beings, the Son 
of God is the fulness of all reasonable 
beings, so too He Himself takes as it 
were a fulness into Himself, being 
shown to be most full in regard to 
each of the blessed. And that what 
is said may be the plainer, conceive 
of a king as being filled with kingdom 
in respect of each of those who aug- 
ment his kingdom ; and being emptied 
thereof in the case of those who 


revolt from their king. So nothing 
is more in harmony with the merciful 
kingdom of Christ, than each of those 
reasonable beings aided and perfected 
by Him, who help to fulfil that king- 
dom ; in that fleeing unto Him they 
help to fulfil His Body, which is in a 
manner empty, while it lacks those 
that are thus aided by Him. Where- 
fore Christ is fulfilled in all that come 
unto Him, whereas He is still lacking 
in respect of them before they have 
come,” 

The words of the great master are 
not always clear, but his illustration 
is a good one up to a certain point: 
and at least there is no doubt of what 
he thought the passage meant. 

Chrysostom, in his Commentary 
on the passage (Savile, iii 776), after 
expounding the Headship of Christ to 
His Body, says: 

“But, as though this were not 
enough to show the relation and close 
connexion, what says he? ‘The ful- 
ness’, he says, of Christ is the Church. 
For the fulness of the head is the 
body, and the fulness of the body is 
the head....‘The fulness’, he says: that 
is, just as the head is filled (or ful- 
filled) by the body. For the bodyis 
constituted of all its parts, and has 
need of each one....For if we be not 
many, and one a hand, another a foot, 
and another some other part, then 
the whole Body is not fulfilled. By 
means of all, then, His Body is ful- 
filled. Then the Head is fulfilled, 
then there comes to be a perfect Body, 
when we all together are knit and 
joined in one. Do you see the riches 


i 3—iii 21 


i 15—23 


EXPOSITION OF THE pigs. 50 7 


The beginning of c. ii cannot be separated from the close of 
c. ii The Apostle has been led away to expound the mystery 
of the exalted Christ: but he comes quickly back to the actual 
persons to whom he is writing, and deals at some length with 
their relation to the exalted Christ. The transition is exactly 
parallel to that in v. 11, where from ‘the gathering up in one of 
the universe in the Christ’ he turns at once to speak of the relation 


of himself and of his readers to Christ—‘in whom also we...in whom 


ye also...’. 

It will be useful at this point to note the general construction of 
the first part of the epistle: 

(1) .A Doxology—leading to ever-expanding thoughts of the 
purpose of God in Christ, and describing the relation of Jew and 
Gentile to that purpose (i 3—14). 

(2) A Prayer—leading to a preliminary exposition of the 
mystery of the exalted Christ (i 15-23), and then to a fuller 
discussion of the relation of Jew and Gentile to Him (ii 1—2z2). 

(3) ‘In iii 1 the Apostle recurs to the thought of his Prayer ; 
but at once breaks off to say more of the mystery, and of his own 
work in proclaiming it; and then (iii 14) returns to his Prayer, and 
closes it at last with a brief Doxology (iii 20, 21). 

We may now gather up the leading thoughts of i 1523, in 
order to grasp the connexion of this passage with what follows: 

‘I have heard of your faith (15): I thank God, and I pray (16) 
that you may have the true knowledge (17), the light which falls 
on the opened eye of the heart; that you may know the hope 
of God’s calling, the glory of God’s inheritance (18), the great- 
ness of God’s power: above all, the last of these as it bears 
upon ourselves (19). Judge what it is by looking at the exalted 
Christ: there you see it at work (20). God has raised Him, and 
exalted Him above every conceivable dignity of this world or 
the next (21). Thus supreme, He has further made Him Head 
of a Body (22), which in turn fulfils and completes Him; for to 
an absolute completeness He is still moving on (23)’. 

The grammatical construction was broken in v, 22: from 
that point independent sentences follow one another, no longer 
subsidiary to the words ‘according to the working...which...’ of 
wv. 19, 20. 

The verb of our next sentence, which is simply added by a 
conjunction to those which precede, is long in coming; for once 


of the glory of the inheritance? Do power towards them that believe? Do 
you see the exceeding greatness of the you see the hope of the calling?” 


a al EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


more the construction is broken, to be picked up again in ». 3 
We find the verb at last in‘ He hath quickened us together with 
Christ’, 

So that the line of thought is this: The power which the Apostle 
specially prays that they may know is the very power by which 
God has raised Christ from the dead and seated Him in the 
heavenly region (i 20), and also has quickened them (both Gentiles 
and Jews, as he breaks off to explain), and raised them, and 
seated them in the heavenly region in Christ (ii 5, 6). In the 
original the sequence is brought out clearly by the repetition of 
the verbs of i 20 in a compound form in ii 6. 


AND you, who were dead in your trespasses and sins, 
*wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this 
world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the 
spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience ; wherein 
we also all had our conversation in time past in the lusts of our 
flesh, doing the desires of our flesh and of owr minds, and were 
by nature children of wrath, even as the rest :—+but God, being 
rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He hath loved us, 
Seven though we were dead in trespasses hath quickened us 
together with Christ,—by grace ye are saved,—‘and hath 
raised us together and seated us together in the heavenly 
places in Christ Jesus: 7that in the ages to come He might 
shew forth the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness 
toward us in Christ Jesus. ®*For by grace are ye saved through 
faith ; and that not of yourselves: 7 1s the gift of God: 9not of 
works, lest any man should boast. *°For we are His workman- 
ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath 
afore prepared that we should walk in them. 


The grammatical construction is often broken in St Paul’s 
writings from a desire to clear up obscurities at once and to fore- 
stall possible misconceptions. His style reminds us of the freedom 
and rapidity of conversation: it hurries eagerly on, regardless of 
formal rules, inserting full explanations in a parenthesis, trusting 
to repetitions to restore the original connexion, and above all 
depending on emphasis to drive the meaning home. We have the 
less cause to be surprised at this freedom of composition, when we 


47 


ili I—10 


48 


2 (4) Esdr. 
Viii I 


Matt.xii 32 


Rom. xii 2 


EXPOSITION OF THE [II 1, 2 


remember that several of his epistles contain the clearest indi- 
cations that the Apostle’s practice was to dictate his letters to an 
amanuensis', Accordingly in many cases the force of a passage 
will most readily be felt when we read it rapidly or read it aloud. 

In the present instance the Apostle desires to work out a simple 
parallel. The mighty power of God, he would say, which raised 
Christ from the dead and seated Him in the heavenly region, has 
been at work in you as well. For you too were dead, and you too 
it has raised from the dead and seated with Christ in the heavenly 
places. But he breaks off in the middle to explain (1) in what 
sense he could speak of them as dead, and (2) that not only they, 
the Gentiles, were dead, but the Jews likewise. Quite similarly in 
i 13 he had broken off to say that not the Jews only had been taken 
as God’s portion, but they, the Gentiles, likewise. 


‘Dead wm your trespasses and sins’; that is to say, you were 
dead, not with a physical death as Christ was, but with the death of 
sin ; dead while you lived, because you lived in sin. This state of 
death was the inevitable condition of those who had no life beyond 
the life of this world, which is dominated by death and the lords of 
death *. 

‘ According to the course of this world’. The expression of the 
original is pleonastic. The Apostle might have said either ‘this 
age’, or ‘this world’. But for the sake of emphasis he says, in a 
phrase which we cannot use in English without ambiguity, ‘the 
age of this world’. ‘This age’ and ‘this world’ represent a single 
Hebrew phrase, which is often found in the Rabbinic writings, 
where it stands in contrast to ‘the age (or ‘ world’) to come’, that 
is to say, the age introduced by the advent of the Messiah. The 
contrast is not found in the canonical books of the Old Testament ; 
but it occurs frequently in 2 (4) Esdras. Thus we read: ‘The 
Most High hath made this world for many, but the world to come 
for a few’. The same contrast is found in St Matthew’s Gospel, 
and we have had it already in this epistle *. 

St Paul is in agreement with contemporary Jewish thought in 
regarding ‘this age’ as evil and as transitory (see Gal. i 4, 1 Cor. 
vii 31). Instead of being ‘conformed’ to it, Christians are to be 
‘transfigured’ even now ‘by the renewing of their mind’. For them 


1 Compare e.g. Rom. xvi 22, 1 Cor. 3 See Eph. i 21, and the com- 
xvi 21, Col. iv 18, 2 Thess. iii 17. mentary on that verse. Compare also 


2 On ‘life’ and ‘death’ in a spiritual 2 (4) Esdr. vi 9, ‘For Esau is the end 
sense see the striking wordsof Dr Hort of this world, and Jacob is the begin- 
(Hulsean Lectures, App. pp. 189ff.). ning of it that followeth’. 


II 2, 3] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 49 


this ‘ world’ is already dead, having been itself ‘crucified’ in the Gal. vi 14’ 
crucifixion of Christ. 

‘According to the prince of the power of the air’. Here again 
the Apostle adopts the language of his contemporaries. It was the 
general belief of his time that through the Fall the whole world had 
become subject to evil spirits, who had their dwelling in the air, 
and were under the control of Satan as their prince. So in the 
New Testament itself we read of ‘the power of darkness’, in Col.i13_ 
contrast with the kingdom of Christ; of ‘the power of Satan’, and ar : Matt, 
even ‘the kingdom of Satan’; and Beelzebub is named as ‘the xii. 263 
prince of the devils’. Later on in this epistle we have a further Markiti2 
description of ‘the spiritual hosts of wickedness’, who are called vi 12 
in a strange phrase ‘the world-rulers of this darkness’. 

This ‘ power (or ‘authority’) of the air’ is further described by 
a collective term as ‘the spirit that now worketh in the sons of ii2 
disobedience’. The phrase is carefully chosen so as to suggest that 
the world-power as a whole stands in sharp contrast to God. It is 
‘a spirit’, and it ‘worketh’—the same forcible word which has been i 11, 20 
used twice already of the Divine working. 

‘The sons of disobedience’ is a Hebraism. It recurs in v 6. 
Compare also Luke xvi 8, xx 34, ‘the sons of this world’ (or ‘age’): 
and contrast 1 Thess. v 5, ‘sons of light’ and ‘sons of day’. In 
rendering it into Greek the word ‘children’ is sometimes used 
instead of ‘sons’; as in ii 3 ‘children of wrath’, and v 8 ‘ children 
of the light’: but the meaning is precisely the same. 


Lest the Gentiles should seem for a moment to be placed in a 
worse position than the Jews, St Paul breaks off to insert a guard- 
ing clause. We were all alike, he says, in this evil case. ‘ Wherewn ii 3 
we also all had owr conversation wm time past in the lusts of our flesh, 
doing the desires of our flesh and of our minds’. 

Whether in Gentile or in Jew this lower life was hateful to 
God: it was a life of disobedience, and as such it incurred the 
Divine wrath. We ‘were by nature children of wrath, even as the 
rest’, 

‘Children of wrath’ is, as we have seen, an expression parallel 
to ‘sons of disobedience’, That the ‘wrath’ here spoken of must 
be the Divine wrath, and not human ‘ passion’, is made clear by a 
later passage, in which similar phraseology recurs: ‘on account v6 
of these things the wrath of God cometh upon the sons of dis- 
obedience’. Moreover, to interpret ‘wrath’ in this place as 
‘passion’ would destroy the contrast which immediately follows 
between ‘wrath’ and ‘mercy’. The phrase plainly signifies ‘ objects 


EPHES.” 4 


50 


/ 


EXPOSITION OF THE [II 3 


of the Divine wrath’: compare Rom. i 18, ii 5, 8, where ‘the wrath 
of God’ is shewn to attend Gentiles and Jews alike who do amiss. 

Thus far the expression involves no difficulty. This is what 
St Paul has always taught: Jew and Gentile are in the same case: 
they have alike lived in sin: they are alike ‘sons of disobedience’ 
and ‘children of wrath’, 

But into the latter phrase he inserts the words ‘by nature’: 
‘children by nature of wrath’ is the order of the original. In 
interpreting these words it is important to remember that we are 
accustomed to use the word ‘nature’ much more freely than it was 
used in St Paul’s day. We speak, for instance, of ‘an evil nature’: 
but there is no such term to be found in the New Testament’. So 
too we often use the word ‘natural’ in a depreciatory sense, as 
when we render 1 Cor. ii 14, ‘The natural man receiveth not the 
things of the Spirit of God’, But in the Greek the word is yids, 
‘the man of soul’, as opposed to wvevparixes, ‘the man of spirit’. 
The Greek word for ‘nature’ is a neutral word. It simply means 
the natural constitution of a thing, or the thing in itself apart from 
anything that may come to it from outside. As a rule it has a 
good meaning rather than a bad: thus ‘according to nature’ is 
good, ‘contrary to nature’ is bad; compare Rom. xi 21 ff, and 
Rom. i 26. 

An important example of St Paul’s use of the phrase ‘by 


- Rom. ii 14 nature’ is found in the words, ‘When the Gentiles, which have 


not Law, by nature do the things of the Law’: ie. without the 


Gal. iixrg intervention of a direct revelation. Other examples are, ‘We are 


Gal. iv 8 


| 


by nature Jews’: Le. we have not become such ; we are such: and, 
‘those which by nature are not gods’, though they may be thought 
such and called such. 

The sense of the present passage is: We were in ourselves chil- 
dren of wrath, even as the rest: but God in His mercy did not 
leave us to ourselves—as the Apostle hurries on to say, breaking his 
sentence again in order to point the contrast. We must be careful, 
then, while retaining the rendering ‘by nature’, not to introduce 
later meanings and associations of the word ‘nature’; nor to 
make St Paul throw the blame upon a defect of constitution which 
necessarily led to sin and wrath. That is not the teaching of this 
passage. ‘By nature’, as St Paul used the words, men were not 
necessarily led to do wrong: they could not shift the blame on to 
their ‘nature’. 

1 In 2 Pet.i4 we read of a ‘Divine in contrast to a ‘nature of beasts’ 


nature’ (ela dicts); and in Jas.iii 7 (pdors Onplwy). 
of a ‘human nature’ (dv@pwrivn picis) 





II 36] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 51 


Much of the confusion which has shrouded the meaning of 
the passage is probably due to the word ‘children’. This sug- 
gests to many minds the idea of infancy: so that St Paul is 
taken to mean that by our birth as children we came under the 
Divine wrath. But this is quite foreign to his meaning here. He 
is not thinking, as in Rom. v, of the sin and death in which we are 
involved through Adam’s disobedience. He is speaking of actual 
transgressions, of a conversation in the lusts of the flesh. Atten- 
tion to the two parts of the phrase has shewn us (1) that ‘children \ 
of wrath’ is a Hebraism for ‘objects of wrath’, and (2) that ‘ by 
nature’ means simply ‘in ourselves’, as apart from the Divine 
purpose of mercy. So that the common misinterpretation which | 





makes the phrase mean ‘deserving of wrath from the moment of 
birth’ is due to a neglect first of a Hebrew, and then of a Greek) 
idiom. 


St Paul hastens on, as so often, from sin to grace, only mention- 
ing sin in order to shew how grace more than meets it: compare 
Rom. iii 23 £., v 12—21. Here sin and wrath lead on to ‘a wealth ii 4 
of mercy’, as in the previous chapter sin led on to ‘a wealth of i7 
grace’. 

‘ Even though we were dead in trespasses’. With these words he ii 5 
takes up the broken sentence of v. 1: only now the Jew has been 
linked with the Gentile in the ‘disobedience’ and the ‘wrath’, and 
therefore must be kept with the Gentile in the ‘mercy’. Hence 
not ‘you,’ but ‘we’. 

‘He hath quickened us together with Christ,—by grace ye are 
saved’. St Paul’s affection for the word ‘ grace’, the word which to 
him sums up his own special proclamation’, the word which is his 
sign-manual ‘in every epistle’, leads him to break off again to insert 2 Thess. iii 
it; and the insertion itself will presently be repeated and expanded, *” : 
causing a yet further digression (v. 8). 

‘Ye are saved’; not ‘ye are being saved’ (present)—salvation 
regarded as in process? nor ‘ ye were saved’ (aorist)—salvation as 
a single Divine act*: but ‘ye are saved’, or ‘ye have been saved’ 
(perfect)—salvation as a Divine act completed indeed, but regarded 
as continuous and permanent in its issues, 

‘And hath raised us together (with Him) and seated us together ii 6 
(with Him) an the heavenly places in Christ Jesus’. The compound 


1 See the detached note on the that were being saved’. 

meanings of xapis. 3 As in Rom. viii 24, ‘for by hope 
2 As in 1 Cor.i18, xv 2; 2 Cor.ii were we saved’. 

15; and especially Acts ii 47, ‘them 


52 


16 
ii 7 


ii 8, 9 


EXPOSITION OF THE [II 6—10 


verbs (cuvyyeipev and ovvexdOicev) are intended to recall the simple 
verbs (éyefpas and xaficas) of i 20. Christ was dead, and was raised 
from the dead. We too, in a true sense, were dead, and as truly 
were raised from the dead in His Resurrection: aye, and were 
seated, even as He was seated, in the heavenly sphere’. 

All this is spoken of as a Divine act contemporaneous with the 
Resurrection and Ascension of Christ. It is wholly independent of 
any human action. It is the free grace of God, which has lifted us 
into a new world in Christ. As its motive the Apostle can but 
suggest the glorification of grace. As he had said before that the 
Election and the Adoption were ‘to the praise of the glory of His 
grace’: so here he says, ‘that in the ages to come He might shew 
Sorth the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in 
Christ Jesus’. 

‘ For by grace’, he repeats, ‘are ye saved through faith’: and 
lest by any means the possibility of merit should seem to creep in 
with the mention of the ‘faith’ which realises this great salvation, 
he adds at once: ‘and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 
not of works, lest any man should boast’: or, if we may slightly 
paraphrase the words to force out the meaning of the original : 
‘aye, and not of yourselves: the gift, for such it is, is God’s gift: 
not of works, that none may have ground to boast’, 


‘ For we are His workmanship’: more closely, ‘for His making 
we are’—words which recall Ps. ¢ 3: ‘it is He that hath made us, 
and not we ourselves’. But the words which here follow shew that 
it is not of the first Creation that St Paul is speaking. There has 
been a new Making of Man in Christ. We have been ‘ created in 
Christ Jesus’. 

This is that New Creation of which St Paul speaks in Gal. 
vi 15, as having done away with the distinction between those who 
were within the Jewish covenant and those who were outside it: 
‘for neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision ; but 
(there is) a new creation’, Similarly in 2 Cor. v 16 f. he declares 
that distinctions of the flesh are done away: ‘ We from henceforth 


know no man after the flesh...so that if any man be in Christ, — 


(there is) a new creation: the old things have passed away : lo, 
they have become new’, 


Mankind had started as One in the original Creation. Butin © 
the course of the world’s history, through sin on the one hand, and ~ 
on the other hand through the revelation of God to a selected | 
People, a division had come in. Mankind was now Two and not — 


1 See above pp. 20 ff. 


| 


y 


‘ 








“IL 10] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


One, There was the privileged Jew, and there was the unprivileged 
Gentile. It was the glory of grace to bring the Two once more 
together as One in Christ. A new start was thus made in the 
world’s history. St Paul called it a New Creation. 

We shall see presently the importance which he attaches to this 
view. ‘He is our peace’, he says, ‘who hath made both One.. 
that He might create the Two in Himself into One New Man, 


making peace’, And so again, later on, he speaks of ‘the New iv 24 


Man, which according to God is created in righteousness’, 

The New Creation, then, in St Paul’s language is that fresh 
beginning in the history of the human race by which the old division 
is done away, and the unity of mankind is restored. It was for the 
realisation of this unity that St Paul laboured and suffered. His 
supreme mission was to proclaim Christ as the centre of a united 
humanity. And this is the drift of our present passage. The 
Apostle has been speaking of the relation of both Gentile and Jew 
to Christ. Both alike were in themselves the objects of Divine 
wrath by reason of their disobedience: but both alike, though dead, 
were quickened, raised, exalted, with and in Christ Jesus. Man was 
made anew by God. Free grace had done it all: works, or ‘merit’, 
as we should say, had no part in the matter. It was a New 
Creation: ‘God’s making are we, created in Christ Jesus’. 

‘Created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath afore 
prepared that we should walk in them’. Not ‘of works’, but ‘unto 
works’, The Divine purpose is not achieved apart from the ‘ good 
works’ of men: only it does not begin from them, but leads to 
them. They are included in the Divine will for man: they are 
ready for our doing ; and we are created to do them. This reference 
to ‘works’ is an echo of the earlier controversial teaching. It is 
directly suggested by the mention of ‘faith’, which is the human 
response to the Divine ‘ grace’, 


‘We must not allow our attention to be distracted by the details 
of interpretation from the very remarkable thought which is 
enshrined in the verses which we have been considering. The 


Apostle has been praying that God would grant to those to whom i 


he is writing the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, with a view to 


their knowing in particular the mighty energy that is at work ini 


themselves and in all Christian people. It is that miraculous power 
which raised and exalted Christ. It has in like manner raised and 
exalted them in Christ: for they cannot be separated from Him, 
even as the Body cannot be separated from its Head. The result 


1146 


ii Io 


i 22 


53 


of this action on God’s part is manifold. It lifts them out of the ii 1—10 


54 


Col. iii 1 ff. 


Rom, viii 


ii 11—22 


EXPOSITION OF THE [II 10, 15 


present ‘age’, or ‘world’, and sets them ‘in the heavenly sphere’. 
Tt lifts them above the control of the world-forces which rule here 
below, and seats them where Christ is seated above all the powers 
that are or can be. It lifts them out of death—the death of sin— 
and makes them truly alive. It annihilates the old distinction 
between Gentile and Jew, and inaugurates a New Creation of man- 
kind: for Gentile and Jew alike were dead, and alike have been 
quickened and exalted in Christ Jesus. And all this is the free 
gift of God, His sovereign grace. 

The same teaching, couched to some extent in the same words, 
may be gathered out of various parts of the Epistle to the Colossians 
(see especially i 21, ii 12, 13, 20); and there it is pressed to the 
logical conclusion, which is only hinted at in the ‘ good works’ of 
our passage. For there the Apostle urges: ‘If therefore ye 
have been raised together with Christ, seek the things that are 
above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God: set your 
thought on the things that are above, not on the things that are on 
the earth. For ye have died, and your life is hidden with Christ 
in God’, 

Nor is the teaching by any means confined to these two epistles. 
We need but recall the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, 
where again the logical conclusion is vigorously pressed: ‘In like 
manner do ye also reckon yourselves dead to sin, but living to God 
in Christ Jesus’, 

In our present passage the practical issue is not insisted on, but 
merely hinted at in passing. The Apostle’s main thought is the 
unity which has thus been brought about, and the new hope which 
accordingly is opened up for mankind as a whole. Hence he passes 
on at once to expound the wealth of privilege to which, as the result 
of this new unity, his Gentile readers have been introduced. 


* WHEREFORE remember that in time past ye, the Gentiles 
in the flesh, who are called the Uncircumcision by that which 
is called the Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands,—” that 
at that time without Christ ye were aliens from the common- 
wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, 
having no hope and without God in the world. ™ But now in 
Christ Jesus ye who in time past were far off have been made 
nigh by the blood of Christ. “For He is our peace, who hath 
made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of the 
partition, “having abolished in His flesh the enmity, the law 





II 11] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 55 


of commandments contained in ordinances: that He might 
create in Himself of the twain one new man, so making peace; 
*and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by 
the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and He came and 
preached peace to you which were afar off, and peace to them 
that were nigh ; *for through Him we both have our access in 
one Spirit unto the Father. So then ye are no more strangers 
and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and 
of the household of God, *being built upon the foundation 
of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the 
corner-stone ; “in whom all the building fitly framed together 
groweth into an holy temple in the Lord; *in whom ye also 
are being builded together for an habitation of God in the 
Spirit. 

‘ Wherefore remember’. It is hard for us to realise the vital ii xr 
interest of this teaching to St Paul’s readers. To us the distinction 
of Jew and Gentile is not the most important fact in human life. 
The battle for our privilege as Gentile Christians—for our part 
and place in Christ—was fought and won eighteen hundred years 
ago. We have forgotten the struggle and the victory altogether. 
We do not recognise that this was a decisive battle of the world’s 
history. 

But for the Gentiles to whom St Paul wrote the abolition of this 
great distinction was everything. For five and twenty years the 
conflict had been raging. At one moment the issue had depended 
onasingle man. A little place the Christian Jew was prepared to 
allow to the Christian Gentile. He might be like ‘the stranger in 
the gates’: but he could not be as the true born child of privilege, 
unless indeed he were prepared to abandon his Gentile position, and 
by circumcision identify himself with the Jew. 

At one critical moment even St Peter withdrew himself, and Gal.iirrf. 
would not sit at the same table with the Gentile Christians, St 
Barnabas at that moment was likewise carried away. St Paul stood 
alone. He saw that everything depended on absolute equality 
within the Church of Christ. He withstood St Peter to the face, 
and brought him to his true self again. That scene and a score of 
others, when in different ways the same struggle was being waged, 
left a deep mark on St Paul’s mind. Two Churches or one—that to 
his mind was the question at issue. One Church, in the providence 
of God, and through the work of St Paul, it was destined to be. 


56 


EXPOSITION OF THE [iT 14342 


The struggle was over—but only just over—when he wrote this 
letter. It was the morrow of the victory. Can we marvel that 
while it was vivid in his memory, and in the memories of all, he 
should delight again and again to remind the Gentiles of what had 
been gained? ‘ Wherefore remember’. 


‘ Remember that in time past ye, the Gentiles in the jlesh’. The 
connexion appears to be this. We—both Gentiles and Jews, with 
no distinction now—are God’s New Creation in Christ; created 
with an end to fulfil, a path marked out to tread. Wherefore 
remember what you were, and what you are. You were the 
despised, outside, alien Gentiles, while these fleshly distinctions 


2 Cor.v 16 lasted. But now that ‘we know no man after the flesh’, now that 


the New Creation has made the Two no longer Two, but One, all is 
yours: you have equal rights of citizenship, an equal place in the 
family of God; you go to make up the Temple in which it pleases 
God to dwell. 

‘Remember that in time past ye, the Gentiles in the flesh’,—while 
‘the flesh’ was the ground of distinction, as it was while the sign 
of God’s covenant was a mark made by a man’s hand on a man’s 
flesh—‘ who are called the Uncircumeision by that which is called 
the Circumcision, in the flesh, made with hands’. There is no 
necessary trace of contempt, as has been sometimes thought, in the 
expressions, ‘who are called the Uncircumcision’, and ‘ which is 
called the Circumcision’. These were familiar names on Jewish 
lips, even if St Paul himself will not lend them his sanction. There 
is no ground for the interpretation, ‘the so-called’, as if the Apostle 
meant that the distinctions were absurd or unreal. They were very 
real and very tremendous; but they were done away in the New 
Creation. So far as there is any depreciation of circumcision in the 
passage, it is found in the last words, which are intended to suggest 
that it belongs to an order that is material and transient. 

The emphasis which the Apostle wishes to lay on the words ‘the 
Gentiles’ has led him again to expand, and so the sentence is broken. 
This is the third time in the epistle that he has broken his sentence 
to emphasise the position of the Jew and the Gentile: compare i 13 
and ii 3. Nothing could more clearly shew the place this question 
held in his thought. 

‘ That at that time without Christ ye were aliens from the common- 
wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise’. A 
contrast is here drawn between their old position, ‘at that time 
without Christ’, and their new position, ‘now in Christ Jesus’ 
(v. 13). This contrast is somewhat obscured if we render, as in the 


II 12] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 57 


Authorised Version, ‘that at that time ye were without Christ, 
being aliens’ &c. They are called upon to remember not simply 
that they were without Christ, but what they were without Christ, 
It is interesting to compare with this statement of disabilities 
the Apostle’s catalogue in an earlier epistle of the privileges of those 
whom he terms ‘his brethren, his kinsfolk after the flesh’: they Rom. ix 
‘are Israelites’; theirs ‘are the adoption, and the glory, and the 3—5 
covenants, and the giving of the law, and the worship, and the 
promises’; theirs ‘are the fathers’, that is, the patriarchs and 
prophets, the heroes of the past ; and of them ‘is the Christ accord- 
ing to the flesh’. These were their distinctive privileges, which 
marked them as the Elect People. It was these things that the 
Gentiles had lacked. 
‘In Christ’, indeed, as they now were, all was theirs ; but ‘ with- 
out Christ’, as they had been, they were unenfranchised ‘ outlanders’, 
aliens and foreigners, with no rights of citizenship in the sacred Gen. xvii 7 
commonwealth, with no share in the covenants which guaranteed pera x 
the promise made to ‘ Abraham and his seed for ever’. veh 
‘ Having no hope’. The Jew had a hope: the Gentile had none. 
The golden age of the Gentile was in the past: his poets told him 
of it, and how it was gone. The Jew’s golden age was in the 
future: his prophets told him to look forward to its coming. 
‘And without God’. Though there were ‘gods many and lords 1 Cor. viii 
many’, yet in the true sense they had no God. It had not yet ® 
been revealed, as it was revealed through Christ, that ‘the God of Rom. ii 
the Jews’ was ‘the God of the Gentiles also’. ie 
This is the only place in the New Testament where the word 
aeos occurs. It is in no contemptuous sense that the Apostle 
speaks of them as having been ‘atheists’, or ‘godless’. It was the 
simple and sad description of their actual state, not indeed from 
their own, but from the only true point of view. 
The charge of ‘atheism’ was hurled again and again by the 
heathen at the Christians of the early days. Justin Martyr com- 
plains that Christians were persecuted as adeot, and reminds the 
persecutors that Socrates had been put to death as a@eos, On a 
memorable occasion the phrase was turned back on those who used 
it. The Martyrdom of Polycarp tells (c. 9) how the proconsul bade 
the aged bishop, in words which it was customary to employ, 
‘Swear by the genius of the emperor; repent; say, Away with 
the atheists’ (Afpe rots aféovs—meaning the Christians). ‘Then 
Polycarp, looking towards the people and waving with his hand, 
groaned and looked up to heaven and said, Alpe rots dOéovs’. It 
was they and not the Christians, who had no God, 


58 


i 13 


EXPOSITION OF THE [IT r2—14 


‘In the world’. These words are the positive description of the 
state which the Apostle has hitherto been describing entirely by 
negatives. Coming at the close, they stand in sharp contrast to 
what immediately follows: ‘but now in Christ Jesus...’ | 

They are not however to be taken by themselves, but in close 
connexion with the two preceding phrases. The world, to St Paul, 
is the present outward order of things; not of necessity to be 
characterised as evil; but evil, when considered as apart from God, 
or as in opposition to God. Without a hope, and without a God— 
this was to be ‘in the world’ and limited to the world, with nothing 
to lift them above the material and the transient. It was to be, in 
St John’s language, not only ‘in the world’, but ‘of the world’. 


‘ But now in Christ Jesus ye who in time past were far off have 
been made nigh by the blood of Christ’. In the remainder of this 
section the Apostle reverses the picture. They were ‘ without 
Christ...in the world’: they are ‘in Christ Jesus’. The distance 
between the unprivileged and the privileged is annihilated: ‘the 


Isa. lvii 19 far’ has become ‘near’. These are Old Testament terms: the 


ii 14 


allusion is more explicitly made below in v, 17. 

‘ By the blood of Christ’, or (more literally) ‘in the blood of the 
Christ’, So ini 7 we had ‘through His blood’, when the Apostle 
was speaking of the Emancipation, before he had distinguished the 
two classes of Jew and Gentile, and when he was describing the 
blessings of the new Election in the imagery of the old covenant. 
We may reserve to a later point the consideration of his present 
use of the words. 

‘ For He is owr peace’. The pronoun is emphatic in the original. 
We might render: ‘For He Himself is our peace’, or ‘For it is He 
who is our peace’, 

Note that the Apostle, having taken two words from the passage 
in Isaiah, now takes a third. In fact it is thus that the word 


Isa. Ivii 19 ‘ peace’ is suggested to him: for the old promise ran : ‘ Peace, peace 


ii 15 


to him that is far off, and to him that is nigh’. ‘It is He’, says 
St Paul, ‘who is our peace’. Notealso the change in the pronouns— 
from ‘ye’ to ‘our’. To you and to us the peace has come. We 
were strangers to one another ; nay, we were enemies: ‘it is He 
who is our peace’, 

He, ‘who hath made both one’—both the parts one whole, The 
neuter of the original cannot well be expressed by an English 
translation. Lower down, instead of the neuter he will use the 
masculine: ‘that He might create the two (men) into one new man, 
(so) making peace’. 


II 14] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


This is the most perfect peace: not the armed peace of rival 
powers, not even the peace of the most friendly alliance ; but the 
peace which comes from absolute unity. There can. be no morea 
quarrel, when there are no more two, but only one. 


‘And hath broken down the middle wall of the partition’ ; that is, 
the intervening wall which formed the barrier. 

To understand the metaphor we must know something of the 
construction of the Temple in St Paul’s day. The area which had 
been enclosed by Herod the Great was very large. It consisted of 
court within court, and innermost of all the Holy Place and the Holy 
of Holies, There were varying degrees of sanctity in these sacred 
places. Into the Holy of Holies only the High Priest could enter, 
and that once in the year. The Holy Place was entered daily and 
incense was burned by a priest on the golden altar at the moment 
of the sacrifice of the morning and evening lamb. This sacrifice took 
place outside in the Court of the Priests, where was the great Altar 
of Burnt-offerings. Outside this again were two further courts——the 
Court of the Sons of Israel immediately adjacent, and beyond this 
on the east the Court of the Women. The whole of the localities 
thus far mentioned formed a raised plateau: from it you descended 
at various points down five steps and through gates in a lofty wall, to 
find yourself not yet outside the temple-precincts, but on a narrow 
platform overlooking another large court—the outer court to which 
Gentiles who desired to see something of the glories of the Temple, 
or to offer gifts and sacrifices to the God of the Jews, were freely 
admitted. Further in than this court they were forbidden on pain 
of death to go. The actual boundary line which the Gentile might 
not cross was not the high wall with its gates, but a low stone 
barrier about five feet in height which ran round at the bottom of 
fourteen more steps’. 

In the year 1871, during the excavations which were being 
made on the site of the Temple on behalf of the Committee of the 
Palestine Exploration Fund, M. Clermont Ganneau found one of 
the very pillars which Josephus describes as having been set up on 
the barrier to which St Paul here refers, It is now preserved in 


1 This account is derived from 
Josephus Antiqg.xv 11, B.J.v 5. In 
the latter passage he says: ‘As you 
went on through this first court to the 
second there was a stone fence run- 
ning all round, three cubits high and 


most beautifully worked; on it there 
were set up at equal distances pillars 
setting forth the law of sanctity, some 
in Greek and some in Roman charac- 
ters, how that no man of another race 
might pass within the sanctuary’. 


ii 14 


59 


ii 1I—14 


EXPOSITION OF THE [II 14 


the Museum at Constantinople, and it bears the following inscrip- 
tion in Greek letters’: 

NO MAN OF ANOTHER NATION TO ENTER 

WITHIN THE FENCE AND ENCLOSURE 

ROUND THE TEMPLE. AND WHOEVER IS 

CAUGHT WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME 

THAT HIS DEATH ENSUES. 


That barrier, with its series of inscribed stones threatening 
death to the intruder, was still standing in the Temple courts at the 
moment when St Paul boldly proclaimed that Christ had broken it 
down. It still stood: but it was already antiquated, obsolete, out 
of date, so far as its spiritual meaning went. The sign still stood : 
but the thing signified was broken down. The thing signified was 
the separation between Gentile and Jew. That was done away in 
the person of Jesus Christ. A few years later the sign itself was 
dashed down in a literal ruin. Out of that ruin a fragment of it 
has been dug, after exactly eighteen hundred years, to enforce 
St Paul’s words, and by a striking object lesson to bid us, the 
Gentiles, ‘remember’ that in Christ Jesus we who were ‘far off’ 
have been ‘made nigh’, 


At this point we may pause to draw out in greater fulness the 
teaching of the Apostle in this passage. He has called on the 
Gentiles, who have newly been admitted into a position of absolute 
equality of privilege with the Jew, to remember what they were 
and what they now are. They were the Gentiles, according to a 
distinction which he describes by the words ‘in the flesh’: that is 
to say, they were the Uncircumcision, as they were called by those 
who on their part were called the Circumcision. The distinction 
was an external one: it was made ‘in the flesh’; it was made by a 
man’s hand. The very terms suggest—and are chosen to suggest— 
that it was temporary, not eternal. But it was not therefore un- 
real; nor was it wrong: it was part of the Divine method for the 
education of the world. It is done away now ; but it was divinely 
ordained, and tremendous in its reality while it lasted. 

This is what they were. There was a dividing line, and they 
were on the wrong side of it. And consequently, as he goes on to 
say, they were not only without the sign of privilege, but without 
the privilege itself. For they were not members of the Chosen 
People: they were aliens, they were strangers: they knew nothing 
of a Divine fellowship, a sacred polity, in which men were linked 
to one another and to God, in which God had entered into covenant 

1 For the Greek text see the commentary ad loc. 


le 





II 14] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 61 


with men and had blessed them with a promise which brightened 
their outlook into the future. Nothing of all this was for them: 
they had no hope, no God: they were in the world without a hope 
and without a God—the world, which might be so full of hope and 
so full of God, to those who knew the Divine purpose and their 
own share in it; but which was as a fact to them, in their isolated, 
unprivileged condition, a hopeless and a godless world. That is 
what they were: it would do them good to think upon it. 

If we bear in mind how closely St Paul links together member- 
ship in a Divine polity and fellowship with God Himself, we shall 
be saved from some difficulties of interpretation later on. He did 
not deny that God was working in the hearts of the Gentiles all 
the while: something of God could be known to them, was known 
to them: ‘He left not Himself without witness’; He was always Acts xiv17 
doing them good : their sin consisted in their rebellion against Him 
who made Himself felt among them, at least in some degree, as the 
Lord of their spirits. But they were not like the favoured Jews, 
who knew God and had been brought into an actual fellowship 
with Him, who had God ‘so nigh unto them’, who were claimed Deut. iv 7 
every moment of their lives as God’s own ; so that in a peculiar 
sense God was ‘the God of Israel’, and Israel was ‘the Israel of 
God’, 

The Jew, and the Jew alone, was nigh to God. And hence it 
followed that to be nigh to the Jew was to be nigh to God, and to 
be far from the Jew was to be far from God. 

This then is what St Paul says: You were far off, but now you 
have been made nigh. In the first instance he means, You were 
far off from the Jewish commonwealth and the covenants that con- 
tained the promise: but he cannot separate this thought from that 
other which gave it all its meaning and importance—far from the 
sacred commonwealth is far from God. 

We must go back upon his life-long training, if we would under- 
stand his position. From a child he had been taught that he was 
a member of a Selected People, that he was brought into a Divine 
fellowship. This membership, this citizenship in the sacred polity, 
was the fact on which his whole life rested. This was what made 
life worth living to him: this was his one only and sufficient 
hope for the great future. When he became a Christian this was 
not taken from him. Only he now saw that his People’s hope had 
come: he saw in Jesus the Messiah of his People’s longings. All, 
and more than all, that his prophets had foretold had actually come 
to pass. The Divine fellowship, the sacred commonwealth, was 
more than ever to him now. ‘To be within it, as he knew he was, 


62 


Mark xi 
17 


Ps. ii 8 


EXPOSITION OF THE [IT 34 


was infinitely more precious a privilege, to be outside was far more 
grievous a disability, than ever it could have seemed before. 

Hence the deep pathos of his language as he describes the hopeless 
misery of the Gentile world. Hence too his supreme delight in pro- 
claiming, not that the Divine fellowship was suddenly at an end, but 
that the old limits by which it had been confined to a single race were 
done away ; that the world was no longer two parts—one privileged, 
the other unprivileged—but one whole, all privileged alike ; that the 
partition wall which had kept the Gentile at a distance was simply 


broken down, and that Jew and Gentile might enter hand in hand 


into the One Father’s house, ‘the house of prayer for all nations’. 

Tt was the fulfilment of the Jewish hope—not its disappointment 
—which had brought about this glorious issue. It was the Messiah 
who had done it. The Jew lost nothing: he gained everything— 
gained new brothers, gained the whole Gentile world. In Christ 
God had ‘ given him the heathen for his inheritance, and the utter- 
most parts of the earth for his possession’, 

The Gentile too had gained all. He indeed had nothing to lose, 
and could only gain. He had gained brotherhood with the Jew, a 
place in the Divine family, the franchise of the sacred polity, his 
passage across the partition which had divided him from the Jew 
and thereby had divided him from God. He was brought nigh— 
nigh to the Jew, and nigh to God. 

All this is in St Paul’s thought when he says: ‘ Ye were far off, 
but ye have been made nigh’, 

We have not yet considered the important words which he adds 
to this statement: ‘in’ or ‘by the blood of the Christ’. The 
reconciliation by which ‘the far off’ and ‘the near’ are brought 
together—by which Gentile is made nigh to Jew and thereby nigh 


Heb, ix 18 to God—is ‘not without blood’. For neither was the Jew’s own 


covenant ‘without blood’, 

We need to remind ourselves that from the earliest days every 
treaty between man and man, as well as every covenant between 
man and God, was ratified and made sure by the blood of a sacrifice. 
All that is done away now, and we find it hard to do full justice to 
a conception so foreign to our ways of thinking. But we must bear 
this fact in mind if we would understand St Paul. The covenant 
between a nation and its deity was a covenant of blood: the peace 
between a nation and a nation was ratified by a victim’s blood’. 


1 The history of this idea, which by the late Professor W. Robertson 


played so large a part in human life Smith (part I. ‘ Fundamental Institu- 
before the Christian era, is elaborately _ tions’). 


treated in The Religion of the Semites 





a 


a 





ET eg, 5] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


That the Messiah had been killed was at first sight the defeat 
and failure of all the expectation of which He had been the centre. 
His resurrection dispelled the gloom, and shewed that He had 
triumphed in spite of death—even through death, for He had shewn 
Himself the conqueror of death. His death was presently seen to 
have been a necessary stage of His work. It partook of the nature 
of a sacrifice. It was the blood of a covenant: so He Himself had 
solemnly described it on the eve of His crucifixion—‘ This is My 
Blood of the Covenant’. St Paui gives us here an interpretation of 
His words. The ‘blood of the Christ’ had made a new treaty of 
peace between the two opposing sections of humanity : it had made 
the two into one. ‘The blood of the Christ’ had made ‘ the far off’ 
to be ‘near’: it had widened out the old Covenant, so as to embrace 
those who had been outside: it had become the fulfilment of all the 
sacrificial blood-shedding of the old Covenant, which it superseded 
only by including it in a new Covenant, in which Jew and Gentile 
alike had access to the one and only God. His life-blood poured out 
as the ratification of the new Covenant, says St Paul, has made ‘the 
far off’ ‘near’; for He Himself is our peace ; He Himself has made 
the two parts one whole ; He Himself has broken down the partition- 
wall that shut off the one from the privileges of the other. 


Up to this point the Apostle’s meaning is clear, when once we 
have grasped the conceptions which lie behind his thought. But he 
is conscious that he has been using the language of metaphor, and 
he proceeds to elaborate and to interpret what he has been saying. 
The participial clause which follows is a re-statement in other terms 
of what has immediately preceded. 

‘ Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, the law of command- 
ments contained im ordinances’. This recasts and presents afresh 
the statements ‘He Himself is our peace’ and ‘He hath broken 
down the middle wall of the partition’. ‘In His flesh’ corresponds 
to the emphatic pronoun ‘He Himself’; the abolition of ‘the 
enmity’ is a new description of ‘our peace’. As the division was 
symbolised and expressed in the barrier of the Temple, so ‘the 
enmity ’ was expressed in ‘the law of commandments contained in 
ordinances’. Accordingly the breaking down of the Temple barrier 
is one and the same thing with the abolition of the enmity as it had 
taken outward shape in the enactments of the ritual law. 

But these phrases deserve to be considered one by one. ‘Jn 
His flesh’. ‘ His flesh’ is the scriptural term for what we speak of 
as His humanity, His human nature. ‘He took upon Him flesh’ 
was an early Christian mode of speaking of the mystery of the 


63 


Mark xiv 
24; comp. 
Ex. xxiv 8 


li 15 


64. 


Matt. v 17 


Col. ii 14 


Col. ii. 20, 
21 


EXPOSITION OF THE [Ii is 


Incarnation. It is the same in meaning with the great phrase of 
the Te Deum, Zu ad liberandum suscepisti hominem, ‘Thou tookest 
upon Thee man, to deliver him’, The flesh of Christ is our common 
humanity, which He deigned to make His own. So that in Him 
‘all flesh’, that is, all humanity, finds its meeting point. And thus 
He is Himself our peace: in His own person He has abolished our 
enmity. 

‘ The law of commandments contained in ordinances’ was abolished 
by Christ. The fulness of this expression is no doubt intentional. 
Christ came ‘not to destroy’ the law, ‘but to fulfil’ it: not to 
break it down, but to fill it with its full meaning. Yet this was to 
do away with it in so far as it was a limited code of commands. 
All its commandments were swallowed up in the new commandment 
of love. In so far as it was petrified in enactments, and especially 
in those external ordinances which guided all the details of the 
Jew’s daily life and were meant above all things to keep him 
distinct from the outside Gentile,—just in that sense and in that 
measure it was annulled in Christ. This is made clearer by the 
guarding phrase ‘in ordinances’. The law, so far as it was a ‘law 
of commandments’ and was identified with external ‘ ordinances’, 
was abolished by Christ. 

The Apostle uses parallel language in the Epistle to the Colos- 
sians. ‘He hath cancelled the bond that stood against us, (that 
consisted) in ordinances: He hath taken it out of the way, having 
nailed it to His cross’. And he asks, lower down, of those who 
seemed to wish to return to a modified system of external prohibi- 
tions: ‘ Why are ye still ordinance-ridden?’ And at the same time 
he explains his meaning by examples of such ordinances: ‘Touch 
not, taste not, handle not’. To re-enact these was to abandon the 
Gospel and to return to ‘the commandments and doctrines of men’. 

‘The law of commandments in ordinances’ had an important 
use while the distinction ‘in the flesh’ between Jew and Gentile 
had to be clearly marked. The touch of certain things defiled, the 
taste of certain meats made a man unclean. To touch even in the 
commerce of the market what a Gentile had touched, to eat at the 
same table at which a Gentile ate—these things were defiling then. 
The ordinances were framed to prevent such pollution, such sins 
against the Divine covenant which marked off the Jews as a 
peculiar people. It was just these distinctions that were done away 
now ; and with them the ordinances which enforced them were 
annulled. 

‘The law of commandments in ordinances’ was abolished, and 
abolished by the Messiah Himself. ‘In His flesh’ He had united 


II 15—17] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 65 


those whom these distinctions had held apart: ‘in His blood’ He 
had made a new Covenant which included them both. 


‘That He might create in Himself of the twain one new man, so ii 15 
making peace’. This is the New Creation, the New Man, of which 
we have spoken already. Henceforth God deals with man as a 
whole, as a single individual, in Christ. Not as Two Men, the 
privileged and the unprivileged—Two, parted one from the other by 
a barrier in the most sacred of all the relations of life: but as One 
Man, united in a peace, which is no mere alliance of elements 
naturally distinct, but a concorporation, the common life of a single 
organism. 

‘And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the ii 16 
cross, having slain the enmity thereby’. Here the Apostle expresses 
what has all along been implied in his thought, namely, that the 
peace by which the Gentile was reconciled to the Jew was at the 
same time a peace with God. In the new Covenant which was 
made ‘in the blood of the Christ’ not only were the two sections of 
humanity brought nigh to one another, but both of them in the 
same moment were brought nigh to God. 

‘In one body’. This is the ‘ one body’ which has resulted from 
the union of the two sections. It is the ‘one body’ to which the 
‘one Spirit’ of v. 18 corresponds. It is not the human body of the 
Lord Jesus ; that was referred to above in v. 15 by the expression 
‘in His flesh’. Here St Paul is speaking of that larger Body of 
the exalted Christ, of which he has already declared that it is His i 23 
fulness or completion, and of which he will presently declare that iv 4 
‘there is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope 
of your calling’. 

‘ Hawing slain the enmity thereby’, that is, by the Cross, An 
alternative rendering is ‘having slain the enmity in Himself’. The 
meaning is the same in either case: and the expression is a bold 
one. Christ in His death was slain: but the slain was a slayer 
too. 


‘And He came and preached (or ‘published good tidings of’) ii 17 
peace to you which were afar off, and peace to them that were nigh’. 
In these words St Paul combines with the passage of Isaiah which 
he has already used in vv. 13, 14 another passage of the same book. 
‘Peace, peace to him that is far off and to him that is near, saith Isa. lvii 1g 
the Lord’, is combined with ‘ How beautiful upon the mountains Isa, lii 7 
are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth 
peace’. The verb ‘to publish good tidings’ is drawn by the Apostle 
from the Septuagint version of the latter passage. 

EPHES. * 5 


ii 18 


iv 4 


Comp. 
1 Cor. xii 
43 


EXPOSITION OF THE [II 18, 19 


In the words ‘He came and preached’ we have a reference not 


to the work of the Lord Jesus on earth before the Crucifixion, but. 


to the work of the exalted Christ in announcing the peace which 
His death had made. 

‘ For through Him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the 
Father’. The new Covenant was henceforward the ground of the 
Jew’s approach to God, as well as of the Gentile’s. For the old 
Covenant was swallowed up in the new. Jew and Gentile now 
rested alike on the new Covenant, and so all distinction between 
them was at an end. 

It is noteworthy that, as the Apostle proceeds, the hostility 
between Jew and Gentile has been gradually falling into the back- 
ground, The reconciliation of which he speaks is the reconciliation 
of both to God, even more than of each to the other; and the 
climax of all is found in the access of both to the common Father. 
For the supreme blessing which the new Covenant has secured is 
freedom of approach to Him who is to be known henceforth by His 
new Name, not as Jehovah the God of Israel, but as the Father. 

‘In one Spirit’. This phrase is the counterpart of the phrase 
‘in one body’ of v. 16. ‘In one body’ we both were reconciled to 
‘God: ‘in one Spirit’ we both have our access to the Father. The 
“one body’ is animated by ‘one Spirit’, So, later on, the Apostle 
declares: ‘There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye have been 
called in one hope of your calling’. Even if the reference is not 
primarily to the Holy Spirit, yet the thought of Him as the Spirit 
of fellowship is necessarily present where the ‘one Spirit’ of the 
‘one body’ is spoken of. The Body of the Christ has a Spirit that 
dwells init. That Spirit is the Spirit of the Christ, the Holy Spirit. 
When we grasp this correlation of the Body of Christ and the Spirit 
of Christ, we can understand why in the Apostolic Creed the clause 
‘The Holy Catholic Church’ forms the first subdivision of the 
section which begins, ‘I believe in the Holy Ghost’. 


‘So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are 
fellow-citizens with the saints’, The Apostle returns to his political 
metaphor, and uses a term which was well understood in the Greek 
cities. The ‘sojourners’ were a class of residents who were recog- 
nised by law and were allowed certain definite privileges: but 
their very name suggested that their position was not a permanent 
one: they resided on sufferance only, and had no rights of citizen- 
ship. The Gentiles, says St Paul, are no longer in this position of 
exclusion from the franchise of the sacred commonwealth. They 
are ‘ fellow-citizens with the saints’, ‘The saints’ was a designation 








II 19, 20] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


proper to the members of the ancient People of God. They were 
a ‘holy nation’: they were ‘saints’ by virtue of their national 
consecration to Jehovah. The designation was naturally retained 
by St Paul, when the Chosen People was widened into the Catholic 
Church. To quote Bishop Lightfoot’s words’: ‘“‘The Christian 
Church, having taken the place of the Jewish race, has inherited 
all‘ its titles and privileges ; it is ‘a chosen generation, a royal 
priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people’ (1 Pet. iig). All who 
have entered into the Christian covenant by baptism are ‘saints’ in 
the language of the Apostles. Even the irregularities and profli- 
gacies of the Corinthian Church do not forfeit it this title”. 

The Gentiles, then, had been admitted to full rights in the 
polity of ‘the saints’: they were now no less truly a part of the 
consecrated people than were the Jews. But the Apostle adds a 
further metaphor. He has just spoken of God as ‘the Father’, to 
whom they had been given access. In harmony with this he now 
declares that the Gentiles are members of God’s family, or house- 


hold: they have all the privileges of the sons of the house : they are 
‘of the household of God’. In this phrase he uses an adjective ii 19 


(oixetos) which implies the word ‘house’ in the non-material sense in 
which we often use it ourselves: comp. 1 Tim. iii. 4 and 15. But 
we can scarcely doubt that it is the feeling of the radical meaning 
of the word that leads him on to the new metaphor which he at 
once developes, and which would seem excessively abrupt if it were 
not for this half-hidden connexion. They are not merely members 
of the household, but actually a part of the house of God. 


‘Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, ii 20 


Christ Jesus Himself being the corner-stone’. They are not the first 
stones laid in the building: they are built up on others which were 
there before them. The foundation stones are the apostles and 


67 


prophets, the chief stone of all being Christ Jesus Himself, who is the Isa. xxviii 


‘corner-stone’, as the Old Testament writers had called the Messiah. pad a 


In an ie epistle St Paul had emphatically declared: ‘ Other jor. iii 11 


foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ’. 
But there he is employing his metaphor in a different way. He is 
not speaking of persons who are builded in, but of persons who 
build. He himself, for example, is not a stone of the building, but 
‘a, wise master-builder’: those of whom he speaks are builders also, 
and their work will come to the testing. The foundation he has 
himself laid in the proclamation of Christ Jesus: it is not possible 
that any of them should lay any other foundation: but it is only 
too possible that the superstructure which they raise should be 
1 Note on Philippians i 3. 
5—2 


68 


Matt. xvi 
18 


Isa. xxii 22 
(Heb.) 


EXPOSITION OF THE [II 20 


worthless, and that instead of wages for good work done they 
should come in for the fine which attached to careless or fraudulent 
workmanship. Here the application of the metaphor is different. 
The stones are persons: the foundation stones are the apostles 
and prophets, the most important stone of all being ‘ Christ Jesus 
Himself’. 


& 
This last phrase is emphatic. Christ, the Messiah who had 


been spoken of beforehand as the corner-stone; Jesus, the human 
manifestation of the Christ in time: ‘Christ Jesus Himself’. He’ 
is part of the Body which He brings into being, for He is its Head : 
He is part of the House which He founds, for He is its Corner- 
stone. The passage in St Paul’s mind at this point is Isa. xxviii 16, 
as it was rendered by the Septuagint: ‘Behold, I lay for the 
foundations of Sion a stone costly and chosen, a precious corner- 
stone for the foundations thereof’. And just because he will speak 
of Christ in the old prophet’s terms as a corner-stone, he cannot 
here speak of Him as the whole foundation. 

We are naturally reminded by this passage of the saying of our 
Lord to St Peter: ‘I say unto thee, Thou art Peter (Ilérpos), and 
upon this rock (zérpa) I will build My Church, and the gates of hell 
shall not prevail against it: I will give to thee the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven’. Here we have the same metaphor, and again 
its application is slightly varied. In English the play upon words 
is wholly lost : in the Greek it is somewhat obscured by the change 
from Ilérpos to rérpa. The feminine word (7érpa) could not well be 
the name of a man, and accordingly the Greek name of Cepha was 
Ilérpos, which signifies a stone rather than a rock. But in the 
Aramaic, in which our Lord almost certainly spoke, there was no 
such difficulty. Cepha was equally a stone or a rock. So that the 
words must have run, just as we now read them in the Syriac 
versions: ‘Thou art Cepha, and upon this cepha I will build My 
Church’, 

It is worth our while to notice how the metaphor of a house is 
there applied to the Church. It is the Divine House which Christ 
will build (He is neither the foundation nor the corner-stone, but 
the Builder), and the keys of it He will place in the Apostle’s 
hands. Thus by a rapid transition the Apostle’s own relation to 
the house is expressed by a new metaphor; he is now the steward 
of the house: compare the prophet’s words: ‘I will give the 
key of the house of David...’. Thus the Church—the Ecclesia— 
corresponds to ‘the kingdom of heaven’, which the Messiah has 
come to establish: each of the designations being drawn from the 
past history of the sacred commonwealth, which was at once ‘the 





II 20, 21] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Ecclesia of the sons of Israel’ and ‘the kingdom of Israel’. ‘My 
Ecclesia’, Christ says, (i.e. My new Israel) ‘I will build’: compare 
Amos ix 11 f., cited in Acts xv 16 f., ‘I will build again the taber- 
nacle of David which is fallen down’, 

In our present passage the foundation is not Peter (Cepha, the 
rock) ; he is only a part with others of the foundation: not Christ, 
for even He is but a part, though the chief part, the corner-stone: 
but ‘the apostles and prophets’. The scope of these designations I 
have discussed elsewhere’. Here it is enough to say with regard 
to the former that though the Twelve and St Paul himself are no 
doubt primarily intended, we need not seek to narrow it to them to 
the exclusion of others who may have been founders or joint-founders 
of Churches. With regard to the latter the whole context makes 
it abundantly plain that St Paul is not taking us back from the 
New Covenant to the Old—not speaking of Old Testament prophets 
in the past—when he says that the apostles and prophets are the 
foundation of the new House of God. 

When St Paul speaks of Christ as the corner-stone, he uses a 
metaphor which appears to be wholly Oriental. The Greeks laid 
no stress on corner-stones. We must go to the East if we would 
understand at all what they mean. The corner-stones in the 
Temple substructures, which have been excavated by the agency 
of the Palestine Exploration Fund, are not, as we might perhaps 
have supposed, stones so shaped as to contain a right-angle, and 
thus by their projecting arms to bind two walls together ; though 
it would appear from an incidental remark of Sir Henry Layard 
(Nineveh ii 254) that he had seen some such at Nineveh. They are 
straight blocks which run up to a corner, where they are met in the 
angle by similar stones, the ends of which come immediately above 
or below them. These straight blocks are of great length, frequently 
measuring fifteen feet. The longest that has been found is described 
by Sir Charles Warren (Jerusalem Recovered, p. 121) in his account 
of the excavation of the southern wall of the sanctuary area. It 
measures 38 feet and g inches, and belongs to a very ancient period 
of building. It was such a stone as this that furnished the ancient 
prophet with his image of the Messiah. 


‘In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an 
holy temple in the Lord’. The uncertainty which has attended the 
translation of these words may best be illustrated by bringing 
together the various forms of the English Version in this place?. 

1 See Encyclopedia Biblica, aris. 2 I cite the older renderings from 
‘Apostle’ and ‘Prophet (N. T.)’: see ‘The English Hexapla’ (Bagster, 
also below, pp. 97 f. 1841). 


li 21 


7O 


EXPOSITION OF THE [II 21 


Wictir.—1380. In whom eche bildynge made: wexeth in to 
an holi temple in the lord. 

TYNDALE.—1534. In whom every bildynge coupled togedder, 
groweth vnto an holy temple in the lorde. 

CRANMER.—1539. In whom what buyldyng soever is coupled 
together, it groweth vnto an holy temple in the Lorde. 

GENEVA:—1557. In whom all the buyldying coupled together, 
groweth ynto an holy temple in the Lord. 

RueEmms.—1582. In whomal building framed together, groweth 
into an holy temple in our Lord. 

AUTHORISED.—1611. In whom all the building fitly framed 
together, groweth vnto an holy temple in the Lord. 

REVISED.—1881. In whom ‘each several building, fitly framed 
together, groweth into a holy *temple in the Lord. 


1 Gr. every building. 2 Or, sanctuary. 


We need not at this point enter into the causes of so great 
variety of rendering. This would be to discuss the influence of the 
Latin Vulgate, and of the variants in the Greek text. Our study 
of the context should by this time have made it perfectly clear that 
St Paul contemplates a single structure and no more. Such a 
rendering then as ‘every building’ (that is to say, ‘all the build- 
ings’) is out of harmony with the general thought of the passage. 
If the Apostle has in any way referred to parts which go to make 
up a whole, it has always been to two parts, and only two, viz. the 
Jew and the Gentile. To introduce the idea of many churches 
going to make up one Church is to do violence to the spirit of this 
whole section. The rendering ‘each several building, fitly framed 
together, groweth into a holy temple’ offends the most conspicuously 
against the Apostle’s thought. For it must logically imply that 
the ‘several buildings’ grow into ‘several temples’: and this is at 
once inconsistent with the single ‘ habitation’ or ‘ dwelling-place’ of 
God, which the Apostle mentions in the next verse. 

In English the word ‘building’ has various shades of meaning, 
each of which is found equally in its counterpart in the Greek. It 
may mean ‘the process of building’: it may mean ‘the building 
itself when complete’. Or it may have a sense intermediate between 
these two, and mean ‘the building regarded as in process’. The 
Apostle’s meaning is saved by the rendering of the Rheims Bible 
‘al building’ ; but this is somewhat harsh, and limits us too strictly 
to the process, as contrasted with the work in process. ‘ All that 
is builded’, or ‘all building that is done’ might express the sense 
with sufficient accuracy : but this hardly differs from ‘all the build- 


II 21] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 7 


ing’, when we keep before our minds the thought of the building 
in process, as opposed to the completed edifice. We may accord- 
ingly retain the familiar rendering, although it is not free from 
ambiguity if the context be neglected, and although it was origi- 
nally intended as the translation of a reading in the Greek which 
the textual evidence precludes us from accepting. 
All work done on this House of God, all fitting of stone to 
stone, as the building rises coupled and morticed by clamp and 
dowel,—all this work is a growth, as though the building were a 
living organism. St Paul has no hesitation in mixing his meta- 
phors, if thereby he can the more forcibly express his meaning. 
We have the exact converse of this transition in the fourth chapter: 
if here ‘the building grows’ like a body, there ‘ the body is builded’, iv 12, 16. 
‘An holy temple’. The word ‘temple’ in our English Bible is 
used to render two Greek words, naos and hieron. The first of 
these—which is used in this place—denotes the shrine, the actual 
House of God, which in the Jewish temple consisted of the Holy 
Place and the Holy of Holies. The second, on the other hand, has 
the wider meaning of the temple-precincts—the courts and colon- 
nades, in which the people gathered for worship. This distinction 
is observed alike by Josephus and by the writers of the New Testa- 
ment. Thus the hieron was the temple into which the Pharisee Luke xviii 
and the publican went up to pray: it was there that our Lord used 10; Mark 
to teach: it was thence that He drove out the traders. But it aga xis 
was in the naos that the angel appeared to Zacharias the priest : Luke i 9 
it was between the naos and the altar that Zacharias, ‘the son of Matt. xxiii 
Barachias’, was slain: it was the veil of the naos that was rent at 35 
als Mark xv 38 
the Crucifixion’. 
A passage which is sometimes cited to justify a false interpreta- 
tion of our present verse is Matt. xxiv 1, ‘the buildings of the 
temple’. But note the word there used: ‘ And Jesus went out and 
was departing from the Aieron, and His disciples drew near to point 
out to Him the buildings of the hieron’. The plural could be used 
of the temple-precinct through which they were passing, adorned as 
it was with the splendid structures of Herod. It could not be 
used of the naos, which was a single building, divided only by the 
partition of a veil. Accordingly it seems impossible to assign 
any meaning to the phrase ‘every building groweth into a holy 
naos’, except it be such a meaning as is directly opposed, as we 


1 The only passage where there xxvii 5: Judas cast the price of the 
could be a reason for wishing to give Lord’s betrayal into the naos, 
to the naos a wider meaning is Matt. 


72 


il 10 
vi Io 


li 22 


Exod. xv 
173 

1 Kings 
Vili 30 etc, 


EXPOSITION OF THE [II 21, 22 


have seen, to the whole teaching on which St Paul is laying such 
evident stress. 

‘In the Lord’. This is the first time in the epistle that this 
title has stood by itself. It may not be wise always to insist on a 
conscious motive for the choice of the phrase ‘in the Lord’, in 
preference to the phrase ‘in Christ’. Yet it can hardly be a mere 
coincidence that where the Apostle describes the transcendental 
relation of believers to Christ as the ground of their acceptance 
with God he uses the expression ‘in Christ’, or one of the fuller 
expressions into which this title enters; whereas, when he is 
speaking of the issues of that relation as manifested in life and 
conduct here below, he uses the phrase ‘in the Lord’. Contrast, 
for example, the words ‘created in Christ Jesus’ with the words 
‘Be strong in the Lord’. The Christ of the privileged position is 
the Lord of the holy life: if in Christ we are in heaven, in the Lord 
we must liveonearth. Christ is the corner-stone of the foundation ; 
the building grows to an holy temple in the Lord. 

‘In whom ye also’, These words have by this time a familiar 
sound. The Apostle insists afresh upon the inclusion of the Gen- 
tiles: and he is thus led into what might seem a mere repetition of 
what he has already said, but that the two fresh expressions which 
he adds produce the effect of a climax. 

‘Are builded together for an habitation of God in the Spirit’. 
Once more he takes his word from the Old Testament. The 
‘habitation’ or ‘dwelling-place of God’ was a consecrated phrase. 
It was the proudest boast of the Jew that the Lord his God, who 
dwelt in heaven, dwelt also in Sion. To the new People the same 


2Cor.vi16 high privilege is granted in a yet more intimate manner. ‘For we 


Lev. xxvi 
ref. 


are the temple of the living God: as God hath said, I will dwell in 
them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be 
My people’. 

‘In the Spirit’. Here, as so often, the Apostle does not make 
it plain whether he is speaking directly of the Divine Spirit or not. 
But it is to be observed that this section, which began with the 
words ‘in the flesh’ (twice repeated), ends with the words ‘in 
the spirit’. No doubt the thought that the habitation of God is 
spiritual, in contrast to the material temple, is present to the 
Apostle’s mind, even if it does not exhaust the meaning of his 
words. And we may perhaps regard the expression of 1 Pet. ii 5, 
‘a spiritual house’, as the earliest commentary on this passage. 


Thus St Paul closes this great section by declaring that the 
Gentiles had full rights of citizenship in the sacred commonwealth, 


15-32, TIT 1) EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 73 


that they were true sons of the household of God, nay that they were 
a part of His Holy House, builded upon its foundation, secured by 
its corner-stone, that corner-stone which gave unity to all building 
that was reared upon it; so that all such building, duly welded into 
one, was growing into a holy shrine, to be the spiritual dwelling- 
place of God. | 

Such was ‘the mystery of the will of God’. It was that they ig 
might grasp this mystery that he had begun to pray for the ‘ Spirit 
of wisdom and apocalypse’ on their behalf. And now that he has i 17 
so far expounded it, in brief language compared with its mighty 
magnitude, it becomes again the basis of his prayer. Or rather, the 
prayer which he had essayed to utter, and the first words of which 
had carried him so far that the prayer had lost itself in the wonder 
of the blessing prayed for,—that prayer he once more desires to 
take up and at length to utter in its fulness. 

This he attempts to do in the words: ‘ For this cawse I Paul, the iii x 
prisoner of Christ Jesus for you, the Gentiles’: but, as we shall see, 
new thoughts again press in, and in v. 14 he makes another and at 
last a successful attempt to declare the fulness of his petition: 

‘ For this cause I bow my knees’, 


For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you, iii :—13 
the Gentiles,—*if so be that ye have heard of the dispensation 
of the grace of God which was given unto me to you-ward: 
show that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, 
as I have written afore in few words, *whereby, when ye read, 
ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ; 
Swhich in other generations was not made known unto the sons 
of men, as it hath now been revealed unto His holy apostles 
and prophets in the Spirit ; °to wit, that the Gentiles are fellow- 
heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of 
the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, 7whereof I was 
made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God which 
was given unto me according to the working of His power,— 
®unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, was this 
grace given,—to preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable 
riches of Christ, ’and to bring to light what is the dispensation 
of the mystery which from the ages hath been hid in God who 
created all things; “to the intent that now unto the princi- 


74 


irs f. 


EXPOSITION OF THE [III x 


palities and powers in the heavenly places might be made 
known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, 
"according to the purpose of the ages which He purposed in 
Christ Jesus our Lord, *in whom we have our boldness and 
access with confidence by the faith of Him. *Wherefore I ask 
you that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which are 
your glory. 


The construction is at once broken at the end of v. 1. There is 
something even in those few words which has suggested a new train 
of thought, and the Apostle cannot check himself until he has 
expressed what is in his soul. What is the starting-point of this 
new departure ? 

Hitherto St Paul has been strangely unlike himself in one 
particular. He has been marvellously impersonal. His only 
reference to himself since the salutation has been in the words, 
‘I cease not to give thanks and to pray’. He has said nothing 
of his own peculiar office as the chosen herald of these new revela- 
tions of the will and way of God ; and of all that he had personally 
endured, whether in long journeyings and constant labours to bring 
this message to the Gentiles, or in persecutions and imprisonment 
directly due to his insistence on the wideness of the Gospel. The 
reason for this unwonted reserve is, as we have partly seen already, 
that he is not writing to the members of a single Church of his own 


Acts xx 31 foundation, whom he had ‘admonished night and day with tears’, 


irs f. 


who knew him well and to whom he could write as he would have 
spoken face to face. He is writing to many who had never seen 
him, though they must have heard much of him and probably had 
learned the Gospel from his fellow-workers. He is writing not a 
personal word of encouragement, but an exposition of the Divine 
Purpose as he had come to know it—a word of large import for 
multitudes who needed what he knew it was his to give them. He 
has heard how the great work has been going forward far beyond 
the limits of his own personal evangelisation. He thanks God for 
it. It is part of the fulfilment of the Purpose. He is fully taken 
up with declaring what the Purpose has brought to the Gentiles as 
a whole. It is only as he reaches a resting-place in his thought, 
that he hears as it were the clink of his chain, and remembers 
where he is and why he is there: ‘I Paul, the prisoner of Christ 
Jesus for you, the Gentiles’. 

But the words are too full to be left without a comment or a 
justification. You may never have seen my face, he seems to say, 


III 2] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 75 


but surely you have heard how God has been using me to help you: 
you may even have been discouraged by learning to what my efforts 
on your behalf have brought me. 


The fresh points which are to be emphasised in the remainder of iii 2—13 
this section, which is one long parenthesis, are these: (1) St Paul’s 
peculiar mission as the exponent of the mystery of the inclusion of 
the Gentiles, as the publisher of the great secret, as the herald of 
the Gospel of ‘ grace’ ; (2) the newness of the revelation, hid in God 
till now, but made known at last to the apostles and prophets of 
the Christian Church ; (3) the sufferings which his mission has 
entailed upon him, and which yet must not dishearten those for 
whom he suffers. | 

The section is full of echoes of the earlier part of the epistle. 
Almost every great phrase has its counterpart in the first two 
chapters :—the mystery made known by revelation ; revealed by 
the Spirit to the apostles and prophets ; the inheritance, the body, 
the promise, in which the Gentiles have their share in Christ ; the 
grace of God, and the working of His power ; the dispensation of 
the grace, and of the mystery ; the heavenly region ; the purpose 
of eternity ; the free access to God. 


‘If so be that ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of iii 2 
God which was given unto me to you-ward’, The form of the sentence 
is conditional, just as in iv 21; but it can scarcely mean anything 
less than ‘For surely you have heard’, The expression as a whole, 
however, confirms the conclusion that among those to whom the 
epistle was addressed a considerable number, if not the majority, 
had never come into personal contact with the writer: had he been 
writing solely or even primarily to his own Ephesian converts, he 
could never have expressed himself so, 

‘The grace of God which was given unto me’ is a favourite phrase 
of St Paul. The context usually makes it quite clear that ‘the 
grace given’ him was not a spiritual endowment for his own personal 
life, but the Gospel of God’s mercy to the Gentile world. Thus, in 
describing his visit to the Apostles at Jerusalem, St Paul says, 
‘When they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the Gal. ii 7,9 
Uncircumcision,...and when they knew the grace which was given 
unto me,...they gave right hands of fellowship to me and to Barnabas, 
that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the Circum- 
cision’, An equally striking example is found where St Paul 
justifies his action in addressing a letter to the Roman Christians: Rom. xv. 
‘T have written the more boldly’, he says, ‘ by reason of the grace '5 f 


76 


Col. i 25 


Gal.i rs f. 


Gal. ii 2 


EXPOSITION OF THE [III 2, 3 


which was given unto me from God, that I should be a minister 
of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles’. As we have seen in part already, 
‘grace’ was the significant word which summed up for St Paul his 
own special message—the merciful inclusion of the Gentile in the 
purpose of God? 

In a parallel passage of the Epistle to the Colossians we find the 
words, ‘according to the dispensation of God which was given unto 
me to you-ward’; and an English reader might be led to suppose 
that in our present passage the construction likewise must be, ‘the 
dispensation...which was given’. The ambiguity, which does not 
exist in the Greek, might be avoided by the rendering ‘that grace 
of God which was given unto me’ (so the Revised Version renders) ; 
but this expedient has the disadvantage of partially obscuring the 
identity of a phrase which recurs again and again in St Paul’s 
epistles?. 

Both here and in Col. i 2 5 ‘the dispensation’ spoken of is a 
dispensation in which God is the Dispenser, and not the adminis- 
tration, or stewardship, of any human agent. This is made clear 
by the parallel use of the word in i ro, and again below in iii 9. 


‘How that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery ’. 
We have already noted? the signification of the word ‘mystery’ or 
‘secret ’, and of its natural correlative ‘ apocalypse ’ or ‘ revelation’. 
By Divine disclosure, St Paul declares, the Divine secret had been 
made known to him. The recognition of the wideness of God’s 
purpose was neither a conclusion of his own mind nor a tradition 
passed on to him by the earlier Apostles. A special providence had 
prepared him, and a special call had claimed him, to be the depositary 
of a special revelation. ‘It was the good pleasure of God’, he says 
elsewhere, in words that remind us of an ancient prophet*, ‘ who 
separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through 
His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among 
the Gentiles’, And of his visit to the Apostles in Jerusalem he 
says emphatically, ‘I went up by revelation, and I laid before 
them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles’. The message 


* See above p. 51; and, for the 
detailed examination, see the detached 
note on xdpis. The use of the word in 
the Acts is in striking harmony with 
the usage of St Paul: see esp. Xi. 23, 
xv II. 


2 The same ambiguity meets ug 
below in », 7, 


* pp. 30 £., 39. 

“ Comp. Jer. i 5, ‘Before I formed 
thee in the belly I knew thee, and 
before thou camest forth out of the 
womb I sanctified thee; I have ap- 
pointed thee a prophet unto the 
nations’, 


—— ee ee ee 


III 3—5] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. , 77 


itself, and the method of its proclamation and of its justification, 
were alike given to him by Divine revelation. 

‘As I have written afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye iii 3 f. 
can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ’. In the 
earlier chapters the Apostle has stated already in brief his concep- 
tion of the Divine purpose as it has been made known to him. He 
has not indeed declared it in the set terms of a formal treatise. 
But he has given them enough to judge by: if they attend to it 
they cannot but recognise as they read that he writes of that which 
he knows, and that a special knowledge gives him a special claim to 
speak of the mystery of Christ. 

‘ Which in other generations was not made known unto the sons iii s 
of men’. Here St Paul takes up a fresh point. He has not had 
occasion hitherto in this epistle to dwell on the newness of the great 
revelation. It is his reference to his own part as the receiver and 
proclaimer of the illuminating truth, that leads him on to explain, 
not indeed that the Divine purpose is a new thing, but that its 
manifestation to men isnew. The Purpose was there in the treasury 
of the heavenly secrets from eternity: but it was a secret ‘kept in Rom. xvi 
silence’. ‘The sons of men’, whom it so deeply concerned, knew it 25 
not as yet: it was hidden away from Jew and from Gentile alike. 

‘As it hath now been revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets 
in the Spirit’. This clause, without revoking the last, seems to 
leave room for those glimpses of the Divine purpose, which the 
Apostle would never have wished to deny to the holy and wise of 
the past. Yet their half-lights were but darkness, when compared 
with the day of the new revelation. 

In contrast to ‘the sons of men’ of the past, to whom the secret 
had not been disclosed, St Paul sets ‘ the holy apostles and prophets’ 
of the present, to whom a spiritual revelation of it had come. This 
word ‘holy ’"—or ‘saints’, as we render it when it stands by itself— 
has played an important part in the epistle already. It is to ‘their 
saints’ that the epistle is formally addressed ; that is, as we have 
seen, to those who in Christ are now the hallowed People of God. 
The Apostle thanks God that they are recognising their position in 
practice by a love which goes out ‘toall the saints’. God’s heritage, ; 5 
he declares in passing, is ‘in the saints’, that is, in His hallowed i 18 
People. And, later on, he explicitly contrasts the alien state of the 
Gentiles apart from Christ with their new position of privilege in 
Christ as ‘ fellow-citizens with the saints’. When the same word is ii 19 
used, as an adjective, to characterise the ‘apostles and prophets’ to 
whom the new revelation has been made, it cannot be a mere otiose 
epithet or conventional term of respect, nor can it be properly taken 


78 


iii 8 


ii 20 f. 


i17 


EXPOSITION OF THE [III 5,6 


in any other sense than hitherto. It is no personal holiness to which 
the Apostle refers; it is the hallowing which was theirs in common 
with the whole of the hallowed People. Here is the answer to 
the suggested difficulty, that while St Paul must certainly have 
included himself among the ‘apostles’ to whom the revelation came, 
he would hardly have called himself ‘holy’, even in this indirect 
fashion. There is no real incongruity. Not his holiness, but God’s 
hallowing is in question—the hallowing which extended to all the 
members of the hallowed People, even, as he would tell us, to 
himself, though he was ‘less than the least’ of them all. 

The mention of the apostles and prophets, as those to whom the 
new revelation was made, recalls and helps to explain the position of 
the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the ‘holy temple’ 
of God’s building. With the reference to the Spirit as the medium 
of the revelation we may compare the prayer for ‘the Spirit of 
revelation’ to be the guide of his readers into the knowledge of 
God’s purpose. Here, as in some other places, the Apostle’s language 
is so vague that we cannot tell with entire certainty whether he 
refers directly to the personal Divine Spirit, or rather desires to 
suggest that the reception of the revelation is a spiritual process. 
The actual phrase ‘in (the) Spirit’ does not preclude either view. 


What, then, is the substance of this secret—old as eternity, yet 
new in its disclosure to mankind? The Apostle has told us already, 
as he says, in brief: but now to remove all possible misconception 
he will tell us once again, repeating in fresh words the images 
which he has already so fruitfullyemployed. It is ‘that the Gentiles 
are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers 
of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel’. 

The middle term of this threefold description (civowpos) cannot 
be rendered by any current English word. ‘Concorporate’, a loan 
from the Latin, and analogous to ‘incorporate’, is the word we 
want ; but, though it has been used in this connexion, it is not 
sufficiently familiar to take its place in a rendering of the passage. 
Tn relation to the Body the members are ‘incorporate’: in relation 
to one another they are ‘concorporate’, that is, sharers in the one 
Body. ‘The unusual English word might indeed express the fact 
that St Paul himself, in order tc emphasize his meaning, has had 
recourse to the formation of a new Greek compound}. 


1 The rendering of the Latin Vul- fends the unusual Latin on the ground 
gate is ‘cohaeredes et concorporales et that it was important to represent the 
comparticipes’ (Ambrosiaster actually force of the repeated compounds. ‘I 
bas ‘concorporatos’). St Jerome de- know *, he says, ‘that in Latin it 








III 6—9] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 79 


‘Through the gospel, whereof I was made a minister according iii 6 ff. 
to the gift of the grace of God which was given unto me...to preach 
unto the Gentiles...’, There is a close parallel in the Epistle to Col.i 24 ff. 
the Colossians: ‘the Church, whereof I was made a minister ac- 
cording to the dispensation of God which was given unto me to 
you-ward, to fulfil the word of God, (even) the mystery that hath 
been hid’, &c. In both passages the Apostle emphasises the great- 
ness of his peculiar mission, which corresponded to the wide mercy of 
God to the Gentiles. Here he adds ‘ according to the might (or ‘ work- 
ing’) of His power’: words which remind us of Gal. ii 8, ‘He that 
wrought (or ‘ worked mightily’) for Peter unto the apostleship of 
the Circumcision, wrought for me also unto the Gentiles’. 

Once more he breaks his sentence, lest, while as Apostle of the Rom. xi 
Gentiles he glorified his ministry, he should for one moment seem 13 
to be glorifying himself. Never did a man more stoutly press his 
claims: never was a man more conscious of personal unworthiness. 
He was not ‘a whit behind the very chiefest of the apostles’: yet 2 Cor. xi 5 
he felt that he was ‘the least of the apostles’ and ‘not worthy to be 1 Cor. xv 9 
called an apostle’. He was ‘less than the least of all saints’, that is, iii 8 
of all the holy People of God: but yet the fact remained that to 
him this marvellous grace of God had been given, 

‘To preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ’. 
His mission was to ‘ bring as the gospel’—the verb of the original 
takes up again ‘ the gospel’ of v. 6—to the Gentiles the inexplorable 
wealth of the Christ. He can never sufficiently admire the marvel 
of the Divine inclusion of the Gentiles, or be sufficiently thankful 
that it is his privilege to make it known to them. 

‘And to bring to light what rs the dispensation of the mystery iii 9 
which from the ages hath been hid in God who created all things’. So 
in the parallel already quoted he continues: ‘the mystery that hath Col. i 26 
been hid from the ages and from the generations,—but now it hath 
been manifested to His saints’, The purpose of God is an eternal 
purpose—‘ a purpose of the ages’, as he says below in v. 10. It has 
remained concealed since the beginning of things; but it was the 
very purpose of Creation itself. 

As the Creation includes other intelligences beside Man, so the 


makes an ugly sentence. But because Version, ‘fellow-heirs, and of the same 
it so stands in the Greek, and because body, and partakers’ &c., fails to re- 
every word and syllable and stroke produce the reiterated compound (cw-) 
and point in the Divine Scripturesis of the original; and I have therefore 
full of meaning, I prefer the risks of adopted the necessarily paraphrastic 
verbal malformation to the risk of rendering of the Revised Version. 
missing the sense’, The English 


80 


lii 10 


Comp. i22 
ili 21 


Vv 23—32 


lil 11 


lii 12 


ili 13 


Col. i. 24 


EXPOSITION OF THE [III ro—13 


secret of the Divine purpose in Creation is published now to the 
whole universe, as the justification of the Divine dealing : ‘to the 
intent that now unto the principalities and powers im the heavenly 
places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom 
of God’. The Apostle has found a perfectly satisfying philosophy 
of history : he believes that it is able to ‘ justify the ways of God to 
men’; and not to men only, but also to those enquiring spiritual 
powers of the heavenly sphere, who have vainly sought to explore 
the design and the methods of the Creator and Ruler of the world. 

‘Through the church’. This is only the second time that the 
word ‘Church’ has been used in the epistle. We shall have it 
again at the end of the chapter in an equally emphatic position : 
‘to Him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus’. It recurs 
six times in the important passage which closes chap. v. St Paul 
never uses the word in this epistle in the sense of a local Christian 
society, though he does in two out of the four times in which it 
occurs in the Epistle to the Colossians. 

Through the Church ‘the very-varied wisdom of God’ is made 
known to the universe. The metaphor is taken from the intricate 
beauty of an embroidered pattern. We have an echo of it in 1 Pet. 
iv 10, ‘the manifold (or ‘ varied’) grace of God’. 

‘ According to the purpose of the ages which He purposed in Christ 


Jesus our Lord’. ‘The purpose of the ages’ is a Hebraistic phrase 


for ‘the eternal purpose’: just as we say ‘the rock of ages’ for 
‘the everlasting rock’, from the Hebrew of Isaiah xxvi 4. 

‘In whom we have our boldness and access with confidence by the 
Jaith of Him’. These words are an echo of ii 18, and form a similar 
climax. ‘The issue of all is that we are brought near to God Him- 
self through faith in Christ. 

‘ Wherefore I ask you that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, 
which wre your glory’. The meaning is: ‘I ask you not to lose 
heart, when you hear of my suffering as the prisoner of Christ on 
your behalf’. It might seem to some as though the Apostle’s 
sufferings and imprisonment augured ill for the cause which he 
represented. This was not the view that he himself took of 
them. ‘I rejoice in my sufferings on your behalf’, he says to the 
Colossians, in a remarkable passage to which we have already had 
occasion to refer at some length’, Never for a moment did he 
himself lose heart. He saw a deep meaning in his sufferings: they 
were the glory of those for whom he suffered. He commends this 
reason to his readers with a logic which we can hardly analyse. 


1 See p. 44. 


III 13] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Perhaps he could scarcely have explained it to them. It is the 
language of the heart. 7 


The section which we have been considering forms, strictly 
speaking, a mere parenthesis. It is a personal explanation 
occasioned by the words, ‘I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus 
on behalf of you, the Gentiles’. But, though in form it is a 
digression, which still further postpones the utterance of the 
Apostle’s Prayer, yet in the general movement of the thought of 
the epistle it plays an essential part. Though he speaks from 
his own personal standpoint, the Apostle’s thought ranges before 
and after, and he is led to give us such a complete philosophy 
of history as had never been attempted before. He is confident 
that he is in possession of the secret of the Creator Himself :—‘ by 
apocalypse the mystery has been known to me’, 

Hitherto he had been considering mainly the effect of the work 
of Christ, in the reconciliation of the two opposed sections of 
humanity, in the reception of the Gentiles into the sacred common- 
wealth, and in the nearer approach of Jew and Gentile alike to the 
- one Father. But now he is bold to trace the whole course of the 
Divine dealing with man; to declare that ‘through the ages one 
increasing Purpose runs’; and even to suggest that human history 
is intended to read a lesson to the universe. 

The Purpose which is now made clear to him was included in 
the design of Creation itself. But it was a hidden purpose, a Divine 
secret, a mystery of which the apocalypse could not be as yet. ‘The 
sons of men’ had lived and died in ignorance of the secret of their 
own lives and of the universe. Generation followed generation until 
the time was ripe for the disclosure of ‘the mystery of the Christ’. 
At last to the apostles and prophets of a new age the revelation was 
given. Indeed to ‘the less than the least’ of them all the message 
had been primarily entrusted. His part it had been to flash the 
torch of light across the darkness; to illuminate past, present and 
future at once, by shewing ‘ what is the dispensation of the mystery 
that hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things’. 

It was a glorious task: through incessant toil and suffering he 
had accomplished it: his imprisonment at Rome could only remind 
him that for his part the work was done. Yet in a wider sense it 
was only begun. The process which had been revealed to him was 
to move steadily on, in presence of all the spiritual forces of the 
universe, who keenly watch the drama of this earthly theatre, For 


8I 


ili 1—13 


ili 5 


ill. g 


they too ‘ through the Church’ are to learn ‘the very-varied wisdom iii 10 


of God, according to the purpose of the ages which He formed in 
EPHES.” 6 


$2 


lii 1 4—21 


iii 14 


lil 19 
lii 20 
iii 14 
iii r 


EXPOSITION OF THE [III 14 


the Christ, even Jesus our Lord’, And it is because the process 
must go forward, and not slacken for anything that may occur to 
him, that ‘ the prisoner in Christ Jesus’ bows his knees and lifts his 
heart in prayer to God. 


“For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, *of 
whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named, **that 
He would grant you according to the riches of His glory to 
be strengthened with power by His Spirit in the inner man, 
7that Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts in love; ye 
being rooted and founded, "that ye may be able to comprehend 
with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height 
and depth, 79and to know the love of Christ which passeth 
knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God. 
2°Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above 
all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh 
in us, 2*to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus, 
throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. 


After many digressions, into which he has been led by his desire 
to make plain not only what he prays for, but on whose behalf he 
prays, and what is his relation to them which leads him so to pray, 
the Apostle succeeds at last in uttering the fulness of his Prayer. 
The Prayer is in its final expression, as it was at the outset, a 
prayer for knowledge. That knowledge is indeed declared to pass 
man’s comprehension; but the brief doxology with which the 
petition closes recognises a Divine power to which nothing is 
impossible. 

‘For this cause’. These words are resumptive of the opening 
words of the chapter, ‘ For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Christ 
Jesus for you, the Gentiles’, Accordingly they carry us back to 
the great mercy of God to the Gentiles (expounded in c¢, ii) as the 
ground of the Apostle’s Prayer. But the Prayer needed as its 


further preface a reference to his own peculiar mission as the — 
publisher of the new declaration of that mercy, and to the sufferings — 


by which he rejoiced to seal his mission. After this reference has 
been made and fully explained, he knits up the connexion by 
repeating the words ‘ For this cause’, 

‘I bow my knees to the Father’, We shall miss the solemnity of 
this introduction unless we observe how seldom the attitude of 
kneeling in prayer is mentioned in the New Testament. Standing 


= ee on, es . - 








eee Ss 








III 34, 15] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


to pray was the rule: comp. Matt. vi 5, Luke xviii 11, 13. Kneeling 
was expressive of unusual emotion: comp. Luke xxii 41, Acts xxi 5. 
Indeed when we compare Luke xxii 41 ‘kneeling down’ with Mark 
xiv 35 ‘ He fell upon the ground’ and Matt. xxvi 39 ‘ He fell upon 
His face’, the parallels point us to the fact that what there is 
meant is not our ‘kneeling’ in an upright position, but kneeling 
with the head touching the ground—the Eastern prostration. This 
was and is the sign of the deepest reverence and humiliation : and, 
as is well known, the posture was forbidden in the early Church on 
the Lord’s day. 

But the significance of St Paul’s phrase becomes still clearer, 
when we note that it is, in its particular wording, derived from a 
passage of Isaiah (which he quotes in Rom. xiv 11 and alludes to in 


83 


Phil. ii 10): ‘I have sworn by Myself,...that unto Me every knee Isa, xlv 


shall bow’. In that reverence, which is due only to the Supreme, ?3 
to whom it must needs one day be rendered by all, he bends low 
before the Father. 


‘The Father, of whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth ts iii 14, 15 


named’. At the first commencement of his prayer the Apostle had 
spoken of God as ‘the Father of glory’. In this we have one ofi17 
several notable parallels between the prayer as essayed in the first 
chapter and the prayer as completed in the third chapter. 

It will be instructive to bring together here the various refer- 
ences which St Paul makes in this epistle to the fatherhood of God. 
In his opening salutation we find the words ‘from God our Father i 2 
and the Lord Jesus Christ’; and similar words occur at the close vi 23 
of the epistle. His great doxology opens with the words, ‘ Blessed i 3 
be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’; and this title is 
resolved and emphasised, as we have seen, in the form ‘the God of i17 
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory’. Presently he uses the 


name absolutely, in speaking of ‘our access to the Father’; and ii 18 f. 


he follows it by the significant phrase, ‘of the household of God’. 
Then we have our present description, which expands and interprets 
the title ‘the Father of glory’; and shortly afterwards we find the 
absoluteness and universality of the fatherhood yet further de- 
clared in the words, ‘one God and Father of all, who is over all iv 6 
and through all and in all’. Then, lastly, Christian duty is summed 
up in the obligation to ‘give thanks always for all things in the v 20 
name of our Lord Jesus Christ to Him who is God and Father’, 

This survey may help to shew us with what fulness of appreciation 
the Apostle recognises the various aspects of the new truth of the 
Divine fatherhood as revealed to man in Jesus Christ. 


‘The Father, of whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth 4s iii 14, 15 


} area 


84 

iro 

Col. i 20 
Phil, ii ro 
Eph. i 17 
lii 16 


EXPOSITION OF THE [III 15, 16 


named’. ‘The literal translation of the words rendered ‘all father- 
hood’ is ‘every family ’, But this translation entirely obscures to 
an English reader the point of the Apostle’s phrase. In Greek the 
word for ‘family’ (zatpid) is derived from the word for ‘father’ 
(warnp). But in English the ‘family’ is not named from the 
‘father’. So that to reproduce the play upon words, which lends 
all its force to the original, we must necessarily resort to a para- 
phrase, and say ‘the Father, of whom all fatherhood is named’. 

The addition of the words ‘in heaven and on earth’ reminds us 
of the large inclusiveness of the Divine purpose as declared to us by 
St Paul. We have had this collocation already, where the Apostle 
spoke of the summing up of all things in Christ, ‘both which are in 
the heavens and which are on earth’. Similarly he tells us elsewhere 
that the reconciliation in Christ includes ‘all things, whether things 
on the earth or things in the heavens’. And if in one place he adds 
‘things which are under the earth’ as well, it is to declare that 
there is nothing anywhere which shall not ultimately be subject to 
Christ. In the present passage it would be irrelevant to enquire 
what ‘ families in heaven’ the Apostle had in his mind. His whole 
point is that ‘the Father’—whom he has before called ‘ the Father 
of glory ’—is the source of all conceivable fatherhood, whether earthly 
or heavenly. 

According to this notable utterance of St Paul, God is not only 
the universal Father, but the archetypal Father, the Father of 
whom all other fathers are derivatives and types. So far from 
regarding the Divine fatherhood as a mode of speech in reference 
to the Godhead, derived by analogy from our conception of human 
fatherhood, the Apostle maintains that the very idea of fatherhood 
exists primarily in the Divine nature, and only by derivation in 
every other form of fatherhood, whether earthly or heavenly. The 
All-Father is the source of fatherhood wherever it is found. This 
may help us to understand something further of the meaning which 
is wrapped up in the title ‘the Father of glory’. 

‘That He would grant you according to the riches of His glory to 
be strengthened with power by His Spirit in the inner man’. We 
have already pointed to the close parallel between the language of the 
prayer as it is at first enunciated in chap. i and that of its fuller 


expression which we have now reached. In each case the prayer is _ 


directed to the Father—‘the Father of glory’ (i 17), ‘the Father, 
of whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named’ (iii 14 f.). 
In each case petition is made for a gift of the Holy Spirit— that 


1 The Latin and Syriac versions, as in the same difficulty and escaped it 
will be seen in the commentary, were by a like paraphrase. 











‘ 


III 16, 17] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 85 


the Father of glory may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation’ 
(i 17), ‘that He would grant (or ‘give’) you according to the riches 
of His glory to be strengthened with power by His Spirit’ (iii 16). 
We noted before how closely this corresponds with the promise of 
our Lord, as recorded by St Luke, ‘The Father from heaven will Luke xi 13 
give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him’. Again, the sphere of 
action of the Spirit is in each case described in a striking phrase— 
‘the eyes of your heart being enlightened’ (i 18), ‘to be strengthened 
in the inner (or ‘inward’) man’ (iii 16). Finally, the ultimate aim 
of all is knowledge of the fulness of the Divine purpose—‘that ye 
may know what is the hope of His calling’, &c. (i 18 f.), ‘that ye 
may be able to comprehend what is the breadth and length and 
height and depth, and to know’, &e. (iii 18f.). Knowledge and 
power are inextricably linked together: the prayer to know the 
mighty power (i 19) becomes the prayer to have the mighty power, 
in order to be strong enough to know (iii 19). 

‘That Christ may dwell through faith in your hearts in love’. iii 17 
Here we must bear in mind that it is for Gentiles that the Apostle 
prays. He has already declared to them that they are ‘in Christ’: he i 13, ii 13 
now prays that they may find the converse also to be a realised truth, 
‘that Christ may dwell in your hearts’. In writing to the Colossians 
he speaks of this indwelling of Christ in the Gentiles as the climax 
of marvel in the Divine purpose : ‘ God hath willed to make known Col. ii 27 
what is the riches of the glory of this mystery in the Gentiles, which 
is Christ in you’. Thus we come to see the force of the phrases 
‘through faith’ and ‘inlove’. It is only ‘through faith’ (or ‘through 
the faith’, if we prefer so to render it) that the Gentiles are par- 
takers of Christ: and it is ‘in love’, which binds ‘all the saints’ 
together, whether they be Jews or Gentiles (comp. v. 18 ‘to com- 
prehend with all the saints’), that the indwelling of the Christ, who 
is now the Christ of both alike, finds its manifestation and consum- 
mation. We may compare with this the words with which the 
Apostle prefaced his prayer at the outset : ‘Wherefore I, having i 15 f. 
heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the 
saints, cease not to give thanks on your behalf, making mention of 
you in my prayers’, 

‘Ye being rooted and founded’, We have parallels to these 
expressions in the Epistle to the Colossians, which help us to inter- 
pret them here: ‘If ye are abiding in the faith, founded and firm, Col. i 23 
and not being shifted’; and ‘Rooted and built up in Him, and Col. ii 7 
confirmed in the faith, as ye have been taught’. These parallels are 
a further justification of the separation of the participles from the 
words ‘in love’, and their connexion in thought with the ‘faith’ 


86 


Isa. lv 8 


Col. i 26f. 


iv 13 


iii 19 


EXPOSITION OF THE [1II 17—19 


which has previously been mentioned. It is only as they have their 
roots struck deep and their foundation firmly laid in the faith as 
St Paul proclaims it to them, that they can hope to advance to the 
full knowledge for which he prays. 

‘That ye may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is 
the breadth and length and height and depth’. In the original the 


expression is yet more forcible: ‘that ye may have the strength to ~ 


comprehend’, The clause depends on the participles ‘rooted and 
founded’; but it has a further reference to the words ‘to be 
strengthened with power by His Spirit in the inner man’. 

The object of the knowledge for which the Apostle prays was 
stated with some fulness ini 18 f.: ‘that ye may know what is the 
hope of His calling, what the riches of the glory of His inheritance 
in the saints, and what the exceeding might of His power to us-ward 
who believe’. Here it is indicated under vague terms, chosen to 
express its immensity. For the Divine measures exceed human 
comprehension : as it is written, ‘ My thoughts are not your thoughts’. 
And yet in this boldest of prayers the Apostle asks that they may 
be comprehended. ‘The uttermost extent of the Divine purpose is 
the goal, however unattainable, of the knowledge for which the 
Apostle prays. 

‘To comprehend with all the saints’. The knowledge of the 
Divine purpose is the privilege of ‘the saints’, So the Apostle 
speaks to the Colossians of ‘the mystery which was hidden...but 
now it hath been made manifest to His saints, to whom God hath 
willed to make known’, &. As ye, says the Apostle in effect, are 
now ‘fellow-citizens of the saints’, and as your love goes out ‘towards 
all the saints’, in verification of your oneness with them; so you may 
share ‘with all the saints’ that knowledge which is God’s will for them. 

We need not exclude a further thought, which, if it is not 
expressed in these words, at least is in full harmony with St Paul’s 
conception of the unity of the saints in God’s One Man. The 
measures of the Divine purpose are indeed beyond the comprehension 
of any individual intelligence: but in union ‘with all the saints’ we 


may be able to comprehend them. Each saint may grasp some 


portion ; the whole of the saints—when ‘we all come to the perfect 
man’—may know, as a whole, what must for ever transcend the 
knowledge of the isolated individual. 

‘And to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge’. These 
words are a re-statement of the aim, with a recognition that it is 
indeed beyond attainment. The Father’s purpose is coincident with 
the Son’s love: both alike are inconceivable, unknowable—and yet 
the ultimate goal of knowledge. 


= ee ee ef ees ne 








III 19] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 87 


‘That ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God’. The climax iii 19 
of the Apostle’s prayer points to an issue even beyond knowledge. | 
He has prayed for a superhuman strength, in order to the attain- | 
ment of an inconceivable knowledge, which is to result in what he 
can only call fulness—‘all the fulness of God’. What is this | 
fulness for which St Paul prays, as the crowning blessing of the / 
Gentiles for whom he has laboured and suffered ? 

Fulness, or fulfilment, is a conception which plays a prominent 
part in St Paul’s thought both in this epistle and in that which he 
sent at the same time to the Colossian Church. It is predicated 
sometimes of Christ and sometimes of the Church. It is spoken of 
now as though already attained, and now as the ultimate goal of a 
long process. 

Again and again, in these two epistles, we find the thought of 
the complete restoration of the universe to its true order, of the 
ultimate correspondence of all things, earthly and heavenly, to the 
Divine ideal. This issue is to be attained ‘in Christ’, and at the 
same time ‘in’ and ‘through the Church’. 

Thus, to recall some of the main passages, it is the purpose of 
God ‘to gather up in one all things in Christ, both that are in the i 10 
heavens and that are on earth’: and again, ‘It hath pleased God... Col. i 19 f. 
through Him to reconcile all things unto Himself...whether they 
be things on earth or things in the heavens’. Under the figure of 
the universal headship of Christ we have the same thought : ‘ Who Col. ii 10 
is the head of every principality and authority’; ‘He set Him at Eph.izoff. 
His right hand in the heavenly places above every principality and 
authority...and gave Him to be head over all things to the 
Church...’,. And the Church’s part in the great process by which 
the result is to be attained is further indicated in the words : ‘ that iii 10 
there might now be made known to the principalities and authorities 
in the heavenly places, through the Church, the manifold wisdom of 
God’: ‘to whom’, as the Apostle says later on, ‘ be the glory in the iii 2: 
Church and in Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without 
end’. : 

To express this complete attainment of the end of all things in 
Christ and through the Church, the word ‘fulness’ or ‘ fulfilment’, 
with its verb ‘to be filled’ or ‘fulfilled’, is used in very various 
ways. Christ Himself is spoken of not only as ‘filling’ or ‘ful- iv 10 
filling all things’, but also as being ‘all in all filled’ or ‘ fulfilled’. i 23 
In close connexion both with Christ’s headship of the Church, and 
also with the reconciliation of all things, the Apostle speaks of ‘all Col. i 19 
the fulness’ as residing in Christ: ‘for it hath pleased God that 
in Him should all the fulness dwell, and through Him to reconcile 


Col. i 19 
Eph. iii 19 


il 14 
Col. i 22 


Col. ii 8 ff. 


EXPOSITION OF THE [III 19 


all things unto Himself’, The Church is expressly said to be ‘ the | 


fulness’ of Christ, fulfilling Him as the body fulfils the head. All 
the members of the Church are to meet at last in a perfect Man, 
and so to attain to ‘the measure of the stature of the fulness of the 
Christ’. And for the saints the Apostle here prays that they ‘may 


be filled unto all the fulness of God’. 


One remarkable passage remains, in which ‘fulness’ is predicated 
at once of Christ and of the saints: ‘for in Him dwelleth all the 
fulness of the Deity in a bodily way, and ye are filled (or, ‘fulfilled ’) 
in Him’. It is usual to limit the reference of this passage to the 
incarnation of Christ in His individual human body, and to take it 
as meaning that in that body resides the Godhead in all its com- 
pleteness. But this is to neglect St Paul’s special use of the terms 
‘fulness’ and ‘body’, as they recur again and again in these 
epistles. For we have already had in the previous chapter the 
expression ‘ that in Him should all the fulness dwell’ ; and we have 
also to reckon with the phrase ‘that ye may be filled unto all the 
fulness of God’. Moreover, when St Paul refers to the individual 
human body of Christ in these epistles, he does so in unmistakeable 
terms, speaking either of ‘ His flesh’ or of ‘the body of His flesh’. 
But ‘the body of the Christ’ to St Paul is the Church. 

When we bear this in mind, we at once understand the appro- 
priateness of the second clause of this passage: ‘and ye are filled 
(or ‘fulfilled’) in Him’. The relation of Christ to the Church is 
such that His fulness is of necessity also its fulness. And, 
further, the whole passage thus interpreted harmonizes with its 
context. ‘Take heed’, says the Apostle, if we may paraphrase 
his words, ‘lest there be any who in his dealings with you is a 
despoiler through his philosophy (so-called) or empty deceit (as it 
is in truth). Emptiness is all that he has to offer you: for he 
exchanges the tradition of the Christ, which you have received 
(v. 6), for the tradition of men: he gives you the world-elements 
in place of the heavenly Christ. For in Christ dwells all the 
fulness (as I have already said), yea, all the fulness of the Deity, 
expressing itself through a body : a body, in which you are incor- 
porated, so that in Him the fulness is yours: for He who is your 
head is indeed universal head of all that stands for rule and 
authority in the universe’. 

Thus St Paul looks forward to the ultimate issue of the Divine 
purpose for the universe. The present stage is a stage of imperfec- 
tion: the final stage will be perfection. All is now incomplete : in 
the issue all will be complete. And this completeness, this fulfil- 
ment, this attainment of purpose and realisation of ideal, is found 








Til 19—IV 1] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 89 


and is to be found (for to St Paul the present contains implicitly 
the future) in Christ—in Christ ‘by way of a body’; that is to 
say, in Christ as the whole, in which the head and the body are 
inseparably one. 

Even beyond this the Apostle dares to look. This fulfilled and 
completed universe is in truth the return of all things to their 
creative source, through Christ to God, ‘of whom and through Rom. xi 36 
whom and unto whom are all things’,—‘that God may be all in 1 Cor. xv 
all’, Thus ‘the fulness’, which resides in Christ and unto which sh 
the saints are to be fulfilled, is ‘all the fulness of the Deity’, or, as 
he says in our present passage, ‘all the fulness of God’. 

No prayer that has ever been framed has uttered a bolder 
request. It is a noble example of rappyota, of freedom of speech, of 
that ‘boldness and access in confidence’ of which he has spoken iii 12 
above. Unabashed by the greatness of his petition, he triumphantly 
invokes a power which can do far more than he asks, far more than 
even his lofty imagination conceives. His prayer has risen into 
praise. ‘Now wnto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above iii 20 f. 
all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, to 
Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, 
world without end. Amen’. 

‘According to the power that worketh in us’. Once more we are 
reminded of his first attempt to utter his prayer. It was at a 
closely similar phrase that he began to digress: ‘that ye may i 18 ff. 
know...what is the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward 
who believe, according to the working of the might of His strength, 
which He wrought in Christ, in that He raised Him’, etc. It is 
the certainty of the present working of this Divine power that 
fills him with exultant confidence. 

‘To Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus’—in the 
Body and in the Head. This is only the third time that the 
Apostle has named the Church in this epistle. He has spoken of it 
as that which fulfils the Christ, as the body fulfils the head. He i 23 
has spoken of it again as the medium through which lessons of the iii 10 
very-varied wisdom of God are being learned by spiritual intelli- 
gences in the heavenly region. He now speaks of it, in terms not 
less remarkable, as the sphere in which, even as in Christ Jesus 
Himself, the glory of God is exhibited and consummated. 


I THEREFORE, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that ye iv :—6 
walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye are called, *with all 
lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one 


ivi 


iii 2—13 


iv 2 


EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 1 


another in love; 3giving diligence to keep the unity of the 
Spirit in the bond of peace. +Zhere is one body and one Spirit, 
even as also ye are called in one hope of your calling: Sone 
Lord, one faith, one baptism: Sone God and Father of all, who 
is above all and through all and in all. 


I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you’. He repeats the 
title ‘prisoner’ by which he has already described himself; and 
thereby he links this section to the long parenthesis in which he has 
interpreted his use of it. He seems to say: I am a prisoner now, 
and no longer an active messenger of Jesus Christ. I can indeed 
write to you, and I can pray for you. But with yourselves hence- 
forward rests the practical realisation of the ideal which it has been 
my mission to proclaim to you. 

We have already had occasion to draw attention to the special 
usage of St Paul in regard to the names ‘Christ’ and ‘the Lord’’. 
It is in full harmony with this usage that he has previously called 
himself ‘the prisoner of Christ Jesus’, emphasising his special mission 
to declare the new position of the Gentiles ‘in Christ’; whereas now 
he says, ‘the prisoner in the Lord’, as he begins to speak of the 
outcome of the new position, the corporate life ruled by ‘the Lord’. 

‘That ye walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye are called’. The 
great human unity, which the Apostle regards as the goal of the 
Divine purpose, has been created and already exists in Christ. It 
is being progressively realised as a fact in the world of men by the 
Church, which is ‘the body of the Christ’ and His ‘fulfilment’. 
‘Through the Church’, as fulfilling the Christ, the very-varied 
wisdom of the Divine purpose is being taught to the intelligences of 
the spiritual sphere. ‘In the Church and in Christ Jesus’ the 
Divine purpose is to find its consummation to the eternal glory 
of God. 

It is the responsibility of the members of the Church for the 
preservation and manifestation of this unity, which the Apostle 
now seeks to enforce. You, he says, have been called into the 
unity, which God has created in Christ : you have been chosen into 
this commonwealth of privilege, this household of God: you are 
stones in this Temple, members of this Body. This is your high 
vocation ; and, if you would be true to it, you must ever be mindful 
of the whole of which you are parts, making your conduct worthy of 
your incorporation into God’s New Man. 

‘ With all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing 


1 See above, p. 72. 





ee ee me eS hs at ae a 








IV 2] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. gI 


one another in love’. It is the mental dispositions which promote 
the right relation of the parts to the whole and to each other in the 
whole, that the Apostle first demands of them. His experience had 
taught him that these dispositions were indispensably necessary for 
the maintenance of unity. 

This emphatic appeal for ‘lowliness of mind’, as the first of 
virtues to which their new position pledged them, must have been 
peculiarly impressive to converts from heathenism. To the Greek 
mind humility was little else than a vice of nature. It was weak 
and mean-spirited ; it was the temper of the slave; it was incon- 
sistent with that self-respect which every true man owed to himself. 
The fulness of life, as it was then conceived, left no room for 
humility. It was reserved for Christianity to unfold a different 
conception of the fulness of life, in which service and self-sacrifice 
were shewn to be the highest manifestations of power, whether 
human or Divine. The largest life was seen to claim for itself the 
right of humblest service. The Jew had indeed been taught 
humility in the Old Testament, on the ground of the relation of 
man to God. ‘The high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ Isa. lvii rs 
would only dwell ‘with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit’. 
But the Gospel went far further and proclaimed that humility was 
not the virtue of weakness only. The highest life, in the fullest 
consciousness of its power, expresses itself in acts of the deepest 
humility. ‘Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things hee xiii 
into His hands, and that He was come from God, and went to God; +! 
He riseth from supper, and laid aside His garments, and took a 
towel and girded Himself. After that he poureth water into a 
bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with 
the towel wherewith He was girded’. It is in harmony with this 
that St Paul, in a great theological passage, treats humility as the 
characteristic lesson of the Incarnation itself. ‘In lowliness of Phil. ii 3 
mind’, he pleads, ‘let each esteem other better than themselves... 
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus...who 
humbled Himself’. 

In our present passage the Apostle enforces humility on the 
ground of the relation of man to man in the great human unity. A 
larger life than that of the individual has been revealed to him. Its 
law is that of mutual service: and its first requisite is the spirit of 
subordination, ‘lowliness of mind and meekness’. 

‘With long-suffering, forbearing one another’. The patient spirit 
by which each makes allowance for the failures of the other, is 
closely related to ‘the lowliness of mind’, by which each esteems the 
other better than himself. 


92 


Col. iii 
12 ff. 


iv 3 


iv 13 


ii 15 ff. 


EXPOSITION OF THE LIV 2:3 


‘In love’. Here, as so often in this epistle, love is introduced as 
the climax, the comprehensive virtue of the new life which includes 
all the rest’. In the Epistle to the Colossians the same thought is 
even more emphatically expressed : ‘ Put ye on...lowliness of mind, 
meekness, long-suffering; forbearing one another...and, over and 
above all these, love, which is the bond of perfectness ’. 

‘Giving diligence to keep the wnity of the Spirit in the bond of 
peace’. The word ‘endeavouring’, which the Authorised Version 
employs in this place, has come to suggest in our modern usage too 
much of the possibility of failure to be strong enough to give the 
Apostle’s meaning. The word which he uses has an eagerness about 
it, which is difficult to represent in English. The Church to him 
was the embodiment of the Divine purpose for the world: it was 
the witness to men of the unity of mankind. What would become 
of this witness, how should the purpose itself be realised, if the 
unity of the Church were not preserved? Well might he urge upon 
his readers eagerly and earnestly to maintain their oneness. They 
must make a point of preserving it: they must take care to keep it. 

‘To keep the unity’. The unity is spoken of as a thing which 
already exists. It is a reality of the spiritual world. It is a gift of 
God which is committed to men to keep intact. At the same time, 
as St Paul will presently shew, it is a unity which is ever enlarging 
its range and contents : ‘until we all come to the unity’, The unity 
must be maintained in the process, if it is to be attained in the 
result, 

‘The unity of the Spirit’, Hitherto St Paul has avoided the 
abstract word, and has used concrete terms to express the thought 
of unity: ‘one man...in one body...in one Spirit’. Indeed the 
characteristically Christian word to express the idea is not ‘unity’ 
or ‘oneness’ (évérns), but the more living and fruitful term ‘com- 
munion’ or ‘fellowship’ (kowwvia): a term implying not a meta- 
physical conception but an active relationship: see, for example, 
Acts li 42, 2 Cor. xiii 14, Phil. ii 1. Yet the more abstract term 
has its value: ‘the oneness of the Spirit’ underlies ‘ the fellowship 
of the Holy Spirit’, which manifests and interprets it. 

By a mischievous carelessness of expression, ‘unity of spirit’ is 
commonly spoken of in contrast to ‘corporate unity’, and as though 


* Compare for the emphatic posi- which are used to render the corre- 
tion of the phrase ‘in love’, i 4, iii ry, sponding substantive (c7ovd7}) in 2 Cor. 
iY 16; 56, vii r1f., viii 7 f., 16: ‘carefulness’, 

2 The range of the word and the ‘care ’, ‘diligence’, ‘forwardness’, 
difficulty of adequately translating it ‘earnest care’, 
may be illustrated by the five synonyms 








TS le 


i 


IV 3—6] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


it might be accepted as a substitute for it. Such language would 
have been unintelligible to St Paul. He never employs the word 
. €spirit’ in a loose way to signify a disposition, as we do when we 
speak of ‘a kindly spirit’. To him ‘spirit’ means ‘spirit’, and 
nothing less. It is often hard to decide whether he is referring 
to the Spirit of God or to the human spirit. In the present passage, 
for example, we cannot be sure whether he wishes to express the 
unity which the Holy Spirit produces in the Christian Body, as in 
the parallel phrase ‘the fellowship of the Holy Spirit’ ; or rather the 
unity of the ‘one spirit’ of the ‘one body’, regarded as distinguishable 
from the personal Holy Spirit. But at any rate no separation of 
‘body’ and ‘spirit’ is contemplated: and the notion that there 
could be several ‘bodies’ with a ‘unity of spirit’ is entirely alien to 
the thought of St Paul. It is especially out of place here, as the 
next words shew. 

‘There is one body and one Spirit, even as also ye are called in 
one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism ; one God 
and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all’. The 
seven unities here enumerated fall into three groups : one body, one 
Spirit, one hope: one Lord, one faith, one baptism: one God and 
Father of all. 

The Apostle begins from what is most immediately present to 
view—the one Body, vitalised by one Spirit, and progressing towards 
the goal of one Hope. This Body depends for its existence upon 
one Lord, its Divine Head, to whom it is united by one Faith and 
one Baptism. Its ultimate source of being is to be found in one 
God, the All-Father, supreme over all, operative through all, 
immanent in all. 

More succinctly we may express the thought of the three groups 
thus : 

One Body—and all that this involves of inward life and ultimate 

perfection ; 

One Head—and that which unites us to Him ; 

One God—to whom all else is designed to lead us. 

Elsewhere St Paul has said, in words which express a similar 
progress of thought : ‘ Ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s’. 

‘Who is above all and through all and wm all’. A timid gloss, 
which changed the last clause into ‘in you all’, has found its way 
into our Authorised Version ; but it is destitute of authority. The 
Greek in the true text is as vague as the English rendering given 
above: so that we cannot at once decide whether St Paul is speaking 
of ‘all persons’ or ‘all things’. The words ‘Father of all’, which 
immediately precede, may seem to make the former the more natural 


93 


2 Cor. xiii 
14 


iv 4 ff. 


1 Cor. iii 
23 


94 


iii 14 f. 


Col. iii 11 


Col. iii 9, 


12 


Col. iii 12 


iv 7—16 


EXPOSITION OF THE [IV. 6, 7 


interpretation ; but they cannot in themselves compel us to abandon 
the wider meaning. 

The Apostle is indeed primarily thinking of the Body of Christ 
and all its members. The unity of that Body is the truth which he 
seeks to enforce. But when he has risen at length to find the source 
of human unity in the unity of the Divine fatherhood, his thought 
widens its scope. The words ‘ Father of all’ cannot be less inclusive 
than the earlier words, ‘The Father of whom all fatherhood in 
heaven and on earth is named’. And the final clause, ‘Who is 
above all and through all and in all’, is true not only of all intelli- 
gent beings which can claim the Divine fatherhood, but of the total 
range of things, over which God is supreme, through which He 
moves and acts, and in which He dwells, 


It was a startling experiment in human life which the Apostle 
was striving to realise. Looked at from without, his new unity was 
a somewhat bizarre combination. ‘Greek and Jew, circumcision 
and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman ’—all 
these are no more, he boldly proclaims to the Colossians, ‘ but all in 
all is Christ’. The ‘ putting on of the New Man’, he goes on to tell 
them, involved the welding into one of all these heterogeneous 
elements ; or rather the persistent disregard of these distinctions, in 
presence of the true human element, which should so far dominate 
as practically to efface them, In every-day life this made a heavy de- 
mand upon the new virtues of self-effacement and mutual forbearance. 
Accordingly he declares, in language closely parallel to that which 
he uses in this epistle, that to put on the New Man is to ‘put on 
the heart of compassion, kindness, lowliness of mind, meekness, long- 
suffering ; bearing one with another, and forgiving each other, if 
any have a complaint against any’. ‘Over and above all these 
things’ they must put on ‘love, which is the bond of perfectness’. 
And the paramount consideration which must decide all issues is 
‘the peace of the Christ ’, unto which they have been called ‘in one 
Body ’. 


7BuT unto every one of us is given grace, according to the 
measure of the gift of Christ. ®Wherefore it saith: 

When He ascended up on high, He led a captivity captive, 

And gave gifts unto men. 

°Now that, He ascended, what is it but that He also 
descended into the lower parts of the earth? ‘He that 
descended, He it is that also ascended above all heavens, that 


a = x 





| 
: 
| 
. 
: 


a 


IV 7] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


He might fill all things. **And He gave some, apostles; and 
some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and 
teachers; **for the perfecting of the saints for the work of 
ministry, for the building of the body of Christ, till we all 
come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son 
of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the 
fulness of Christ: that we be no longer children, tossed to 
and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the 
sleight of men, by craftiness according to the wiles of error; 
*sbut maintaining the truth in love, may grow up into Him in 
all things; which is the head, even Christ, **from whom the 
whole body, fitly framed together and compacted by every joint 
of its supply, according to the effectual working in the measure 
of each several part, maketh the increase of the body, unto 
the building thereof, in love. 


‘But unto every one of us ts given grace, according to the measure 
of the gift of Christ’. The recognition of the whole is to St Paul 
the starting-point for the consideration of the position of the indi- 
vidual parts. For the unity of which he speaks is no barren 
uniformity : it is a unity in diversity. It secures to the individual 
his true place of responsibility and of honour. 

In order to appreciate the language of this passage we must 
recall the phraseology which the Apostle has used again and again 
in the earlier part of chap. iii. He has there spoken of ‘the grace 
of God which was given’ to him on behalf of the Gentiles. He was 
made minister of the Gospel which included the Gentiles ‘ according 
to the gift of that grace of God which was given’ to him: to himn— 
for he will repeat it the third time—though less than the least of 
the holy people—‘this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles 
the unexplorable wealth of the Christ’, This reiterated identifica- 
tion of his special mission with the gift of grace illustrates the 
passage before us. To each individual, if not to all in like measure, 
the same grace has been given. The Divine mercy in its world-wide 
inclusiveness is committed to each member of the holy people, not 
as a privilege only, but also as a responsibility’. 

‘According to the measure of the gift of Christ’. The grace is 


1 Gompare Phil. i 7, where St Paul nexion with ‘the defence and con- 
speaks of the Philippians as ‘fellow- firmation of the Gospel’. 
partakers with him of grace’, in con- 


iv 7 


ili 2 


iii y 


iii 8 


95 


Rom. xii 
1 ff 


iv 8 


Ps. Ixviii 
18 


iv 9 


iv Io 


the same; but Christ gives it in different measures, as the Apostle 
proceeds to explain. 

At this point we may usefully compare with the present context 
as a whole a parallel passage in the Epistle to the Romans, in 
which, after the Apostle has closed his discussion of the wide inclu- 
siveness of the Divine mercy, he calls for a fitting response in the 
conduct of those to whom it has come. The language of the two 
passages offers several similarities. The opening phrase, with which 
he passes from doxology to exhortation, is in each case the same: 
‘I beseech you therefore’. There, as here, ‘the grace which is given 
to me’ leads the way to ‘the grace which is given to us’. There 
too we find an appeal for humility on the ground of the one Body 
and the distribution of functions among its members, ‘as God hath 
dealt to every man the measure of faith’. ‘Having gifts’, the 
Apostle continues, ‘which are diverse according to the grace which 
is given to us’: and he adds a catalogue of these gifts, which we 
shall presently have to compare with that which follows in this 
epistle. These various functions, diverse according to the distribu- 
tion of the grace—such is the Apostle’s teaching in both places— 
are indispensable elements of a vital unity. 

‘Wherefore tt saith: When He ascended up on high, He led a 
captivity captive, and gave gifts to men’. The Apostle has already 
connected the exaltation of Christ with the power that is at work 
in the members of His Church. The varied gifts bestowed by the 
exalted Christ now recall to his mind the ancient picture of the 
victorious king, who mounts the heights of the sacred citadel of 
Zion, with his captives in his train, and distributes his largess from 
the spoils of war. It is the connexion between the ascension and 
the gifts, which the Apostle desires to emphasise; and the only 
words of the quotation on which he comments are ‘He ascended’ 
and ‘He gave’. 

‘Now that, He ascended, what is it but that He also descended 
unto the lower paris of the earth ?? Desiring to shew that the power 
of Christ ranges throughout the universe, St Paul first notes that 
His ascent implies a previous descent. This descent was below the 
earth, as the ascent is above the heavens. 

‘ He that descended, He it is that also ascended above all heavens, 
that He might fill all things’. From its depths to its heights He has 
compassed the universe. He has left nothing unvisited by His 
presence. For He is the Divine Fulfiller, to whom it appertains in 
the purpose of God to fill all things with their appropriate fulness : 
to bring the universe to its destined goal, its final correspondence 
with the Divine ideal. Compare what has been said above on iii 19. 


——_, 


IV 11] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 07 


‘And He gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets’. The nomina- iv r1 

tive is emphatic in the original: ‘He it is that gave some as 
apostles’, etc. Having commented on ‘He ascended’, St Paul goes on 
to comment on ‘He gave’. It is Christ who in each case fulfils the 
ancient hymn. He it is that ‘ascended’, and He it is that ‘gave’. 
The Ascended One is the giver of gifts. His gifts are enumerated 
in a concrete form: they are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors 
and teachers. All these in their diversity of functions are given by 
the Ascended Lord for the varied and harmonious development of 
His Church. 

In the passage of the Epistle to the Romans to which we have 
already alluded, the gifts are catalogued in the abstract: prophecy, Rom. xii 
ministry, teaching, and the like. Here the Apostle prefers to speak sik 
of the members who fulfil these functions as being themselves gifts 
given by Christ to His Church. In another catalogue, in the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians, he passes from the concrete method of 
description to the abstract: ‘God hath set some in the Church, 1 Cor. xii 
first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that 
miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of 
tongues’. There too he has been speaking of the Body and its 
members; and the general thought is the same as here: the 
diversity of gifts and functions is not only consistent with but 
necessary to corporate unity. 

‘Some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and 
some, pastors and teachers’. Weshall be disappointed if we come to 
this passage, or either of the parallels referred to above, in the 
expectation of finding the official orders of the Church’s ministry. 
The three familiar designations, bishops, presbyters and deacons, 
are all wanting. The evidence of the Acts of the Apostles, which 
employs the first two of these designations in reference to the 
leaders of the Ephesian Church, together with the evidence of the 
First Epistle to Timothy which employs all three in dealing with 
the organisation and discipline of the same Church, forbids the 
suggestion that such officers are not mentioned here because they 
did not exist in the Asian communities to which St Paul’s letter 
was to go, or because the Apostle attached but little importance to 
their position. A reason for his silence must be sought in another 
direction. The most intelligible explanation is that bishops, pres- 
byters and deacons were primarily local officers, and St Paul is here 
concerned with the Church as a whole. Apostles, prophets and 
evangelists are divinely-gifted men who serve the Church at large ; 
and if a local ministry is alluded to at all it is only under the vaguer 
designation of ‘pastors and teachers’. 


EPHES.? 7 


98 


iv 12 


EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 11 


This is not the place to discuss the development of the official 
ministry: but it may be pointed out that it rises in importance as 
the first generation of apostolic and prophetic teachers passes away, 
as the very designations of ‘apostle’ and ‘prophet’ gradually dis- 
appear, and as all that is permanently essential to the Church of the 
apostolic and prophetic functions is gathered up and secured in the 
official ministry itself. 

The recovery of the Didaché, or Teaching of the Apostles, has 
thrown fresh light on the history of the first two terms of St Paul’s 
list?. It shews us a later generation of ‘apostles’, who are what we 
should rather term ‘missionaries’. They pass from place to place, 
asking only for a night’s lodging and a day’s rations. They would 


seem to correspond to the ‘ evangelists’ of St Paul’s catalogue, who | 


carried the Gospel to regions hitherto unevangelised. This mention 
of them establishes beyond further question that wider use of the 


name ‘apostle’, for the recognition of which Bishop Lightfoot had — 


already vigorously pleaded’. 


Yet more interesting is the picture which the Didaché draws for 


us of the Christian prophets. It shews us the prophets as pre- 


eminent in the community which they may visit, or in which they . 
They appear to celebrate the Eucharist, and — 


may choose to settle. 
that with a special liturgical freedom. They are to be regarded as 


beyond criticism, if their genuineness as prophets has once been — 
established. They are the proper recipients of the tithes and first- 
fruits of the community, and this for a noteworthy reason: ‘for — 
And when at the close of the book 

‘bishops and deacons’ are for the first time mentioned, honour is — 
claimed for them in these significant terms: ‘ For they also minister _ 
unto you the ministration of the prophets and teachers: therefore © 


they are your high-priests’. 


despise them not; for they are your honourable ones together with 
the prophets and teachers’, 


overshadowed at present by a ministry of enthusiasm, but destined 
to absorb its functions and to survive its fall. 


‘For the perfecting of the saints for the work of ministry’. 


In this primitive picture it is instruc- © 
tive to observe that the ministry of office is in the background, — 


The © 


1 The Didaché was published by 
Archbp Bryennius in 1883. In its 
present form it is a composite work, 
which has embodied a very early (pos- 
sibly Jewish) manual of conduct. Its 
locality is uncertain, and it cannot 
be dated with prudence earlier than 
about 130 A.D. It is impossible to 


regard it as representative of the 
general condition of the Church at so © 
late a period: it would appear rather © 
to belong to some isolated community, — 


in which there lingered a condition of 
life and organisation which had else- 
where passed away. 

? Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 95. 











FY 12, 3] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


second of these clauses must be taken as dependent on the first, and 
not (as in the Authorised Version) as coordinate with it. The 
equipment of the members of the Body for their function of service 
to the whole is the end for which Christ has given these gifts to 
His Church. If the life and growth of the Body is to be secured, 
every member of it, and not only those who are technically called 
‘ministers’, must be taught to serve. More eminent service indeed 
is rendered by those members to whom the Apostle has explicitly 
referred; but their service is specially designed to promote the 
service in due measure of the rest: for, as he tells us elsewhere, 
‘those members of the body which seem to be feebler are necessary’. 
Thus ‘the work of ministry’ here spoken of corresponds to the 
‘grace given to every one of us’, which is the subject of this 
section. 

An illustrative example of this ministry of saints to saints is to 
be found in St Paul’s reference to an interesting group of Corinthian 
Christians: ‘I beseech you, brethren,—ye know the house of Ste- 
phanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have 
addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints',—that ye submit 
yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us and 
laboureth. I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus 
and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have 
supplied: for they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore 
acknowledge ye them that are such’. From words like these we 
may see that every kind of mutual service is included in the early 
and unofficial sense of this word ‘ ministry’. 

_ If ministry such as this is characteristic of each member of the 
Body, it was preeminently characteristic of the Head Himself: 


99 


1 Cor. xii 
22 


iv 7 


1 Cor, xvi 
5 ff. 


‘The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister’: Mark x 45 


‘I am among you as he that ministereth’, 


‘For the building of the body of Christ’. This is the process to : 


the forwarding of which all that has been spoken of is directed. 
In describing it St Paul combines, as he has done before, his two 


Luke xxii 


7 
iv 13 


favourite metaphors of the temple and the body. He has previously ii 21 


said that the building of the Temple grows: here, conversely, he 
speaks of the Body as being builded. 

‘Till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of 
the Son of God’. Unity has been spoken of, first of all, as a gift to 
be kept ; it is now regarded as a goal to be attained. Unity, as it 
exists already and is to be eagerly guarded, is a spiritual rather 
than an intellectual oneness ; the vital unity of the one Spirit in 


1 Literally, ‘they have appointed themselves unto ministry to the saints’. 
x hg PP 


49 


100 


Gal. ii 20 


EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 13 


the one body. Unity, as it is ultimately to be reached by all the 
saints together, will be a consciously realised oneness, produced by 
faith in and knowledge of the Son of God. We are one now: in 
the end we all shall know ourselves to be one. 

‘The Son of God’. St Paul is so careful in his use of the various 
designations of our Lord, that we may be confident that he has 
some reason here for inserting between two mentions of ‘ the Christ’ 
this title, ‘the Son of God’, which does not occur elsewhere in the 
epistle. It is instructive to compare a passage in the Epistle to the 
Galatians, where a similar change of titles is made. ‘I have been 
crucified with Christ’, says the Apostle, ‘and I no longer live, but 
in me Christ lives: and the life which now [I live in the flesh, I live 
by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and delivered Himself 
up for me’. He with whom he has been crucified, He who now 
lives in him, is ‘Christ’: He whose love brought Him down to 
suffer is ‘the Son of God’. The title is changed to one which 


John xvii s recalls the glory which Christ had with the Father before the world 


iv 14 


was, in order to heighten the thought of His condescending love. 
And so in our present passage, when he is treating of the relation of 
our Lord to His Church, he speaks of Him as ‘the Christ’ (for the 
article is used in both places in the original): but when he would 
describe Him as the object of that faith and knowledge, in which our 
unity will ultimately be realised, he uses the words ‘the faith and the 
knowledge of the Son of God’; thereby suggesting, as it would seem, 
the thought of His eternal existence in relation to the Divine Father. 

‘Till we all come...to a perfect man’: that is, all of us together 
(for this is implied by the Greek) to God’s New Man, grown at 
length to full manhood. Not ‘to perfect men’: for the Apostle 
uses the plural of the lower stage only: ‘that we be no longer 
children’ is his own contrast. We are to grow out of our indi- 
vidualism into the corporate oneness of the full-grown Man. 

‘7'o the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (or, of the 
Christ)’: that is, to the full measure of the complete stature, or 
maturity, of the fulfilled Christ. We cannot forget that St Paul 
has already called the Church ‘the fulness of Him who all in all is 
being fulfilled’. But in using the expression ‘the fulness of the 
Christ’ in this place, he is thinking of more than ‘the Church, 
which is His Body’. For here we get once more to the background 
of St Paul’s thought, in which the Body and the Head together are 
ultimately the one Christ—‘ the Christ that is to be’. 

In the New Man, grown to perfect manhood, St Paul finds the 


ee eee 


i i a i 


consummation of human life. He thus takes us on to the issue of © 
the new creation which he spoke of in chap. ii. There the ‘one new 


} 





IV 13, 14] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


man’ is created in the Christ: but he has a long growth before him. 
More and more are to claim their position as members of him. 
‘Christ is fulfilled’—to quote Origen’s words again '—‘in all that 
come unto Him, whereas He is still lacking in respect of them 
before they have come’. When they shall all have come to the 
unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, when 
they shall all have come to a full-grown Man; then in the ripe 
maturity of the New Man, ‘the fulness of the Christ’ will itself 
have been attained. 

The poet, who has spoken to us of ‘the Christ that is to be’, has 
also most clearly expressed for us a part at least of the truth of the 
Making of Man’: 
| Man as yet is being made, and ere the crowning Age of ages, 
Shall not aeon after acon pass and touch him into shape? 


All about him shadow still, but, while the races flower and fade, 
Prophet-eyes may catch a glory slowly gaining on the shade, 

Till the peoples all are one, and all their voices blend in choric 
Hallelujah to the Maker ‘It is finish’d. Man is made’. 


‘That we be no longer children’. This expression, viewed from iv 14 


the mere standpoint of style, spoils the previous metaphor : but it is 
obviously intended to form a sharp contrast. The plural is to be 
noted. Maturity belongs to the unity alone. Individualism and 
self-assertion are the foes of this maturity. We are not to be 
‘babes’, isolated individuals, stunted and imperfect. Out of indi- 
vidualism we must grow, if we would attain to our perfection in the 
membership of the perfect Man. 

‘No longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with 
every wind of doctrine’. St Paul does not linger on the distant 
ideal. He is quickly back to the present stage of childhood, which 
has still to ‘pass the waves of this troublesome world’ in which 
ideals are too apt to suffer shipwreck. The new metaphor is drawn 
from the sea which the Apostle knew so well, the symbol of insta- 
bility and insecurity. It suggests the jeopardy of the little boats, 
storm-tossed and swung round by each fresh blast, so that they 
cannot keep their head to the waves and are in danger of being 
swamped. 

‘By the sleight of men, by craftiness according to the wiles of 
error’. ‘The dexterous handling of the dice and the smart cleverness 
of the schemer are the figures which underlie the words here used. 
They suggest the very opposite of the Apostle’s straightforwardness 


1 The full quotation is giveninthe ‘The Making of Man’ in The Death of 
note on p. 45. Oenone and other Poems (1892). 
2 Tennyson, In Memoriam cvi: and 


IOI 


102 


EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 34, 15 


2 Cor. iv 2 of teaching. Ours is not, he had once said to the Corinthians, the 


iv 15 


versatility of the adept, which plays tricks with the Divine message. 
So here he warns us that subtleties and over-refinements end in 
error. We must keep to the simple way of truth and love. 

‘ But maintaining the truth in love’. In this epistle St Paul is 
not controversial. He attacks no form of false doctrine, but only 
gives a general warning against the mischievous refinements of over- 
subtle teachers. With the ‘error’ to which these things lead he 
briefly contrasts the duty of ‘maintaining the truth in love’; and 
then at once he returns to the central truth of the harmony and 
growth of God’s one Man. 

‘May grow up into Him in all things’, The next words, ‘ which 
is the head’, seem at first sight to suggest that the Apostle’s meaning 
is ‘may grow up into Him as the head’. But although the limbs of 
the body are presently spoken of as deriving their growth from the 
head—the head being regarded as the source of that harmony of the 
various parts which is essential to healthy development—it would 
be difficult to give a meaning to the expression ‘to grow up into 
the head’. Accordingly it is better to regard the words ‘may grow 
up into Him in all things’ as complete in themselves. What 
St Paul desires to say is that the children are to grow up, not 
each into a separate man, but all into One, ‘the perfect man’, who 
is none other than the Christ, 

The law of growth for the individual is this: that he should 
learn more and more to live as a part of a great whole; that he 
should consciously realise the life of membership, and contribute his 
appropriate share towards the completeness of the corporate unity ; 
and that thus his expanding faculties should find their full play in 
the large and ever enlarging life of the One Man. It is to this that 
St Paul points when he says, ‘that we be no longer children, but 
grow up into Him every whit’. 

In one of the most remarkable poems of the In Memoriam 
Tennyson suggests that the attainment of a definite self-conscious- 
ness may be a primary purpose of the individual's earthly life’: 

This use may lie in blood and breath, 
Which else were fruitless of their due, 


Had man to learn himself anew 
Beyond the second birth of Death. 


We gather from St Paul that there is a further lesson which we are 
called to learn—the consciousness of a larger life, in which in a 
sense we lose ourselves, to find ourselves again, no longer isolated, 


1 In Memoriam, xlv. 


EE ee 





| 
| 


IV 15] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


but; related and coordinated in the Body of the Christ. That the 
poet, too, knew something of the mystery of this surrender of the 
individual life may be seen from his Prologue: 


Thou seemest human and divine, 
The highest, holiest manhood, thou: 
Our wills are ours, we know not how; 
Our wills are ours, to make them thine. 


‘ Which is the head, even Christ’. Backwards and forwards the 
Apostle moves, with no concern for logical consistency, between the 
conception of Christ as the Whole and the conception of Christ as 
the Head of the Body. The newness of the thought which he is 
endeavouring to develope—the thought of human unity realised 
through and in the Christ—is doubtless responsible for these 
oscillations. We feel that the conception is being worked out 
for the first time, and we watch the struggle of language in face of 
the difficulties which present themselves. The initial difficulty is 
to conceive of a number of persons as forming in a real sense one 
‘body’. In common parlance this difficulty is not recognised, 
because the word ‘body’ is used merely to signify an aggregation 
of persons more or less loosely held in relation to one another, and 
its proper meaning of a structural unity is not seriously pressed. 
But just in proportion as ‘a body’ is felt to mean a living organism, 
the difficulty remains. And St Paul makes it abundantly clear that 
it is a living organism—a human frame with all its manifold struc- 
ture inspired by a single life—which offers to him the true concep- 
tion of humanity as God will have it to be. 

A further difficulty enters when the relation of Christ to this 
Body comes to be defined. It is natural at once to think of Him as 
its Head : for that is the seat of the brain which controls and unifies 
the organism. But this conception does not always suffice. For 


103 


Christ is more than the Head. The whole Body, in St Paul’s Rom. xii 5 


language, is ‘in Him’; the several parts ‘grow up into Him’, 


Even more than this, the whole is identified with Him: ‘for as : Cor. xii 


the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of 1? 


the body being many are one body; so also is the Christ’. In the 


New Man ‘Christ is all and in all’. Identified with the whole Gol, iii 11 


Body, He grows with its growth and will find His own fulfilment 
only in its complete maturity. 

We are not therefore to be surprised at the rapidity of the tran- 
sition by which the Apostle here passes from the thought of Christ 
as the Whole, into which we are growing up, to the thought of Him 
as the Head, upon which the Body’s harmony and growth depends. 


Col. iv 14 


ito 
lirs, iii ff. 


iv 3 ff. 


iv I1J—24 


EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 16, 17 


‘ From whom the whole body, fitly framed together and compacted 
by every joint of its supply’. The expression ‘fitly framed together’ 
is repeated from the description of the building process which has 
already furnished a figure of structural, though not organic, unity. 
The remainder of the passage is found again, with slight verbal 
variations, in the Epistle to the Colossians : ‘from whom the whole 
body, furnished out and compacted by the joints and bands, 
increaseth with the increase of God’. The Apostle is using the 
physiological terms of the Greek medical writers. We can almost 
see him turn to ‘the beloved physician’, of whose presence he tells 
us in the companion epistle, before venturing to speak in technical 
language of ‘ every ligament of the whole apparatus’ of the human 
frame. There is no reference either here or in the Epistle to the 
Colossians to a supply of nourishment, but rather to the complete 
system of nerves and muscles by which the limbs are knit together 
and are connected with the head. 

‘ According to the effectual working in the measure of each several 
part’: that is, as each several part in its due measure performs its 
appropriate function. Unity in variety is the Apostle’s theme: 


unity of structure in the whole, and variety of function in the - 


several component parts: these are the conditions of growth upon 
which he insists. 

‘ Maketh the increase of the body, unto the building thereof, in 
love’. This recurrence to the companion metaphor of building 
reminds us that the reality which St Paul is endeavouring to 
illustrate is more than a physiological structure. The language 
derived from the body’s growth needs to be supplemented by the 
language derived from the building of the sacred shrine of God. 
The mingling of the metaphors helps us to rise above them, and 
thus prepares us for the phrase, with which the Apostle at once 
interprets his meaning and reaches his climax,—‘ in love’. 

We have thus concluded a further stage in St Paul’s exposition. 
To begin with we had the eternal purpose of God, to make Christ 
the summing into one of all things that are. Then we had the 
mystery of Christ, consummated on the cross, by which Jew and 
Gentile passed into one new Man. Lastly we have had the unity 
of the Spirit, a unity in variety, containing a principle of growth, 
by which the Body of the Christ is moving towards maturity. 


7THIs I say therefore and testify in the Lord, that ye no 
longer walk as do the Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their 
mind, darkened in their understanding, being alienated from 





Eee 


IV 17—10] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them because 
of the blindness of their heart; *9who being past feeling have 
given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all unclean- 
ness with greediness. *°But ye have not so learned Christ; 
*tif so be that ye have heard Him, and have been taught in 
Him, as the truth is in Jesus; **that ye put off as concerning 
your former manner of life the old man, which is corrupt 
according to the lusts of deceit; *3and be renewed in the spirit 
of your mind, *tand put on the new man, which after God is 
created in righteousness and holiness of the truth. 


‘This I say therefore and testify in the Lord, that ye no longer iv 17 
walk as do the Gentiles walk’. The double use of the verb ‘to 
walk’ points us back to the beginning of the chapter. There he 
had commenced his solemn injunction as to their ‘walk’; but the 
first elements on which he had felt bound to lay stress, humble- 
ness of mind and mutual forbearance, the prerequisites of the life 
of unity, led him on to describe the unity itself, and to shew that 
it was the harmony of a manifold variety. Now he returns to 
his topic again with a renewed vigour: ‘This I say therefore and 
testify in the Lord’—in whom I am who speak, and you are 
who hear’. 

His injunction now takes a negative form: they are ‘not to 
walk as do the Gentiles walk’, This leads him to describe the 
characteristics of the heathen life which they have been called 
to leave. 


105 


‘In the vanity of their mind, darkened in their understanding, iv 17 £ 


being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is 
in them because of the blindness of their heart’. They have no 
ruling purpose to guide them, no light by which to see their way, 
no Divine life to inspire them: they cannot know, because their 
heart is blind. The last phrase may recall to us by way of contrast 
the Apostle’s prayer for the Gentile converts, that ‘the eyes of their i 18 
heart’ might be enlightened. And the whole description may be 
compared with his account of their former state as ‘in the world ii 12 
without hope and without God’. 

‘Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lascivi- iv 19 
ousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness’, They have not 
only the passive vice of ignorance, but the active vices which are 


1 See above on iv. 7. 


106 


EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 19—21 


Rom. i. 21 bred of recklessness. In the opening chapter of the Epistle to the 


—28 


lv 20 


iv 21 


iv 15 


iv 24 f. 


Romans the same sequence is found: ‘they became vain in their 
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened...wherefore God 
also gave them up to uncleanness...for this cause God gave them 
up unto vile affections...even as they did not like to retain God 
in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to 
do those things which are not convenient’. There it is thrice 
said that ‘God gave them up’: here it is said that, ‘having 
become reckless, they gave themselves up’. The emphasis which 
in either case St Paul lays on want of knowledge corresponds 
with the stress which, as we have already seen, he lays upon 
true wisdom’, 

‘But ye have not so learned Christ’, or, as it is in the original, 
‘the Christ’. That is to say, You are no longer in this darkness and 
ignorance : you have learned the Christ: and the lesson involves a 
wholly different life. 

‘Tf so be that ye have heard Him, and have been taught in Him, 
as the truth is in Jesus’. The conditional form of the sentence is 
used for the sake of emphasis, and does not imply a doubt. We 
may paraphrase it thus: ‘if indeed it be He whom ye have heard 
and in whom ye have been taught’. The phrases to learn Christ, 
to hear Him, and to be taught in Him, are explanatory of each 
other. The Apostle’s readers had not indeed heard Christ, in the 
sense of hearing Him speak. But Christ was the message which 
had been brought to them, He was the school in which they had 
been taught, He was the lesson which they had learnt. 

The expression ‘to learn Christ’ has become familiar to our 
ears, and we do not at once realise how strangely it must have 
sounded when it was used for the first time. But the Apostle 
was well aware that his language was new, and he adds a clause 
which helps to interpret it: ‘even as the truth is in Jesus’, or 
more literally, ‘even as truth is in Jesus’. He lays much stress 
on truth throughout the whole context. He has already called 
for the maintenance of the truth in opposition to the subtleties 
of error: he will presently speak of the new man as ‘created 
according to God in righteousness and holiness of the truth’; 
and, led on by the word, he will require his readers as the first 
practical duty of the new life to put away falsehood and speak 
truth each to his neighbour. But truth is embodied in Jesus, who 
is the Christ. Hence, instead of saying ‘ye have learned the truth, 
ye have heard the truth, ye have been taught in the truth’, he says 


1 See above, p. 30. 





Pe 





ee eee -) 


iT ee ee 


IV 21—24] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 107 


with a far more impressive emphasis, ‘It is Christ whom ye have 
learned, Him ye have heard, in Him ye have been taught, even as 
the truth is in Jesus’. | 
Nowhere else in this epistle does St Paul use the name ‘ Jesus’ 
by itself. Nor does he so use it again in any of the epistles of 
his Roman captivity, if we except the one passage in which he 
specially refers to the new honour which has accrued to ‘the name Phil. ii 10 
of Jesus’. Even in his earlier epistles it rarely occurs alone ; and, 
when it does, there is generally an express reference to the death 
or resurrection of our Lord’. We have already said something 
of the significance of St Paul’s usage in this respect?» He uses 
the name ‘Jesus’ by itself when he wishes emphatically to point 
to the historic personality of the Christ. And this is plainly his 
intention in the present passage. The message which he pro- 
claimed was this: The Christ has come: in the person of Jesus— 
the crucified, risen and ascended Jesus—He has come, not only 
as the Messiah of the Jew, but as the hope of all mankind. In 
this Jesus is embodied the truth: and so the truth has come to 
you. You have learned the Christ; Him you have heard, in Him 
you have been taught, even as the truth is in Jesus. 
‘That ye put off as concerning your former manner of life iv 22 ff. 
the old man, which is corrupt according to the lusts of deceit, 
and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new 
man, which after God is created in righteousness and holiness of 
the truth’. The injunctions which St Paul has hitherto laid upon 
his readers have been gentle admonitions, arising directly out of 
the great thoughts which he has been expounding to them. His 
first injunction was: Remember what you were and what you are. ii 11 f. 
The next was: Cultivate that humble and forbearing temper, which iv 2 ff. 
naturally belongs to what you are, which tends to keep the unity. 
But now his demand takes a severer tone: I protest in the Lord, he 
says, that you be not what you were. 
The knife goes deep. As regards your former life, he declares, 
you must strip off ‘the old man’, a miserable decaying thing, rotted 
with the passions of the old life of error. You must be made new 
in your spirits. You must array yourselves in ‘the new man’, who 
has been created as God would have him to be, in that righteousness 
and holiness to which the truth leads. 


1 So in 1 Thess. i 10, iv 14, Rom. Jude. But in Hebrews it occurs alone 
viii 11, 2 Cor. iv 1o, 11,14. The re- eight times; and this is, of course, the 
maining passages are Gal. vir7, Rom. _regular use in the Gospels. 

iii 26, 2 Cor. ivs. The name is not 2 See above, pp. 23 f. 
used alone in James, 1 and 2 Peter, or 





108 


Rom. vi 6 


Rom. vi 7 
ff. 


Gal. ii 20 


Col. ii 12, 
20; ili 


Col. iii 9 ff. 


EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 22—24 


What is ‘the old man’ who is here spoken of? St Paul has 
used the term in an earlier epistle. ‘Our old man’, he had written 
to the Romans, ‘was crucified with Christ’. From the context of 
that passage we may interpret his meaning as follows: I said that 
by your baptism you were united with Christ in His death, you 
were buried with Him. What was it that then died? I answer: 
The former you. A certain man was living a life of sin: he was 
the slave of sin, living in a body dominated by sin. That man, 
who lived that life, died. He was crucified with Christ. That is 
what I call ‘your old man’. 

To the Romans, then, he has declared that their ‘old man’ is 
dead. This, he says, is the true view of your life. It is God’s 
view of it, in virtue of which you are justified in His sight. And 
this view, the only true view, you are bound yourselves to take, and 
make it the ruling principle of all your conduct. 

Elsewhere he says: This is my own case. I have been crucified 
with Christ : I no longer live. Yet you see me living. What does 
it mean? Christ is living in me. So great was the revolution 
which St Paul recognised as having taken place in his own moral 
experience, that he does not hesitate to speak of it as a change 
of personality. I am dead, he says, crucified on Christ’s cross. 
Another has come to live in me: and He has displaced me in 
myself. | 

What was true for him was true for his-readers likewise. 
Christ, he says, has come and claimed you. You have admitted 
His claim by your baptism. You are no longer yourselves. The 
old you then died : Another came to live in you. 

In our present passage, and in the closely parallel passage of the 
Hpistle to the Colossians, St Paul urges his readers to bring their 
lives into correspondence with their true position, by ‘putting off 
the old man’ and ‘putting on the new man’. That they had done 
this already in their baptism was not, to his mind, inconsistent with 
such an admonition. Indeed he expressly reminds the Colossians 
that they had thus died and been buried with Christ, and had been 
raised with Him to a new life. None the less he urges them to 
a fresh act of will, which shall realise their baptismal position : 
‘putting off the old man with his deeds, and putting on the new, 
who is ever being renewed unto knowledge according to the image 
of Him that created him; where there is no Greek and Jew, 
circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, 
freeman ; but Christ is all and in all’. 

The metaphor here employed is a favourite one with St Paul. 
They are to strip off the old self: they are to clothe themselves with 





——_ ee Ee — ee ee ne. 


IV 22—24] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Another. This Other is sometimes said to be Christ Himself. Thus 
St Paul writes to the Galatians : ‘ As many of you as were baptised 


109 


Gal. iii 27 


into Christ did put on Christ’; and to the Romans he says; ‘ Put Rom. xiii 


ye on the Lord Jesus Christ’. Yet we could not substitute ‘Christ’ 
for ‘the new man’ either here or in the Epistle to the Colossians. 
For in both places the Apostle speaks of ‘the new man’ as having 
been ‘created’, a term which he could not apply directly to Christ. 

An earlier passage in this epistle, which likewise combines the 
term ‘new man’ with the idea of ‘creation’, may perhaps throw 
some light on this difficulty, even if it introduces us to a further 
complication. In speaking of the union of the Jew and the Gentile 
in Christ, St Paul uses the words: ‘that He might create the two 
in Himself into one new man’. As ‘the new man’, who is to be 
‘put on’, is the same for all who are thus renewed, they all become 
inseparably one—one new Man. But the one new Man is ulti- 
mately the Christ who is ‘all and in all’, We cannot perhaps 
bring these various expressions into perfect harmony : but we must 
not neglect any one of them. MHere, as often elsewhere with 
St Paul, the thought is too large and too many-sided for a complete 
logical consistency in its exposition. 

The condition of ‘the old man, which 1s corrupt according to the 
lusts of deceit’, is contrasted first with a renewal of youth, and 
secondly with a fresh act of creation. These two distinct con- 
ceptions correspond to two meanings which are combined in the 
phrase ‘is corrupt’. For this may mean simply ‘is being destroyed’, 
‘is on the way to perish’; as St Paul says elsewhere, ‘our outward 
man perisheth’, using the same verb in a compound form. But 
again it may refer to moral pollution, as when the Apostle says to 
_ the Corinthians, ‘I have espoused you to one husband, to present 
you as a pure virgin to Christ; but I fear lest, as Satan deceived 
Eve, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity and purity 
which is towards Christ’. If in our present passage the words 
‘which is corrupt’ stood alone, we might take the first meaning 
only and render ‘which waxeth corrupt’ or, better, ‘which is 
perishing’ : and this would correspond to the contrasted words, ‘ be 
renewed in the spirit of your mind’, But the second meaning is 
also in the Apostle’s mind : for he adds the words ‘ according to the 
lusts of deceit’, and he offers a second contrast in ‘the new man 
which is created after God’, or more literally ‘according to God’, 
that is as he says more plainly to the Colossians ‘according to the 
image of Him that created him’. The original purity of newly- 
created man was ‘corrupted’ by means of a ‘deceit’ which worked 
through ‘the lusts’. The familiar story has perpetually repeated 


14 


ii 15 

iv 22 

2 Cor. iv 16 
2 Cor. xi 

2 f. 

Col. iii ro 


iv 25—V 2 


iv 25 
iv 26 
iv 28 
iv 29 
iv 31 


V3 


EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 25 


itself in human experience: ‘the old man is corrupt according to 
the lusts of deceit’, and a fresh creation after the original pattern 
has been necessitated : it is found in ‘the new man which after God 
is created in righteousness and holiness which are (in contrast with 
‘deceit’) of the truth’. 


25 WHEREFORE putting away lying, speak every man truth 
with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. *Be 
ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your 
wrath; ?7neither give place to the devil. **Let him that stole 
steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his 
hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to 
him that needeth. 22Let no corrupt communication proceed 
out of your mouth, but that which is good, for building up as 
need may be, that it may give grace unto the hearers: 3°and 
grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto 
the day of redemption. 3 Let all bitterness and wrath and 
anger and clamour and evil-speaking be put away from you, 
with all malice: 32and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, 
forgiving one another, even as God in Christ hath forgiven you. 
V. *Be ye therefore followers of God, as His beloved children ; 
and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved: you, and hath 
given Himself for you, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a 
sweetsmelling savour. 


The Apostle proceeds to interpret in a series of practical precepts 
his general injunction to put off the old man and put on the new, to 
turn from the life of error to the life which belongs to the truth. 
He appeals throughout to the large interests of their common life: 
it is the Spirit of fellowship which supplies the motive for this moral 
revolution. Six sins are struck at: lying, resentment, stealing, bad 
language, bad temper, lust. 

Lying is to be exchanged for truthfulness, for the Body’s sake. 
Resentment is to give way to reconciliation, lest Satan get a footing 
in their midst. Stealing must make place for honest work, to help 
others : bad language for gracious speech, ‘unto building up’, and lest 
the one holy Spirit be grieved. Bad temper must yield to kindliness 
and forgivingness, for God has forgiven them all; yea, to love, the 
love of self-giving, shewn in Christ’s sacrifice. Lastly lust, and all 
the unfruitful works of the dark, must be banished by the light. 


Se a 





ti 





Se gee ee - 


| 


IV 25, 26] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. III 


Thus the Apostle bids them displace the old man by the new, 
the false life by the ‘righteousness and holiness of the truth’; 


Ring out the old, ring in the new; 
Ring out the false, ring in the true; 
Ring in the Christ that is to be. 


‘Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his iv 25 
neighbour : for we are members one of another’. In the original the 
connexion with what has immediately preceded is very clearly 
marked. For the word rendered ‘putting away’ is the same as that 
which has been used for ‘putting off’ the old man, though the 
metaphor of the garment is now dropped: and ‘lying’, or ‘false- 
hood’ as it could be more generally rendered, is directly suggested 
by the word ‘truth’ with which the last sentence closes. Truthful- 
ness of speech is an obvious necessity, if they are to live the life of 
‘the truth’. 

The Apostle enforces his command by a quotation from the 
prophet Zechariah : ‘These are the things that ye shall do: Speak Zech. viii 
ye every man the truth with his neighbour: truth and the judge- ae 
ment of peace judge ye in your gates’, But he gives a character of 
his own to the precept in the reason which he adds: ‘for we are 
members one of another’. These words remind us how practical he 
is in all his mysticism. The mystical conception that individual 
men are but limbs of the body of a greater Man is at once made the 
basis of an appeal for truthfulness in our dealings one with another. 
Falsehood, a modern moralist would say, is a sin against the mutual 
trust on which all civilised society rests. St Paul said it long ago, 
and still more forcibly. It is absurd, he says, that you should 
deceive one another: just as it would be absurd for the limbs of a 
body to play each other false. The habit of lying was congenial to 
the Greek, as it was to his Oriental neighbours. St Paul strikes at 
the root of the sin by shewing its inconsistency with the realisation 
of the corporate life. 

‘Be ye angry, and sin not; let not the sun go down upon your iv 26 f. 
wrath ; neither give place to the devil’. The first words of this 
passage are another quotation from the Old Testament. They are 
taken from the Greek version of the fourth Psalm, and are perhaps Ps. iv 4 
a nearer representation of the original than is given by our English 
rendering, ‘Stand in awe, and sin not’, That there is a righteous 
anger is thus allowed by the Apostle: but he warns us that, if 
cherished, it quickly passes into sin. According to the Mosaic law 
the sun was not to set on a cloke held as a surety, or the unpaid wage Deut. xxiv | 
of the needy: and again, the sun was not to set on a malefactor put 13> 15 


112 
Deut. xxi, 


23 
(Josh. viii 
29, X 27) 


iv 28 


iv 29 


Matt. vii 
17f.,x1i 33, 
x1 48 


Col. iv 6 


Rom. xiv 
19 


EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 27—29 


to death and left unburied. This phraseology furnishes the Apostle 
with the form of his injunction. Its meaning is, as an old com- 
mentator observes, ‘Let the day of your anger be the day of your 
reconciliation’?. 

The phrase to ‘ give place to the devil’ means to give him room 
or scope for action. Anger, which suspends as it were the har- 
monious relation between one member and another in the Body, 
gives an immediate opportunity for the entry of the evil spirit? 

‘ Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, work- 
ing with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give 
to him that needeth’. 'This is indeed to put off the old, and to put 
on the new. It isa complete reversal of the moral attitude. Instead 
of taking what is another's, seek with the sweat of your brow to be 
in a position to give to another what you have honestly made your 
own. 

‘ Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth’. The 
word here rendered ‘corrupt’ is used in the Gospels of the worthless 
tree, and of the worthless fish: it is opposed to ‘good’, in the sense 
of being ‘good-for-nothing’. But the ‘corrupt’ speech here con- 
demned is foul talk, and not merely idle talk. It is probable that 
St Paul in his choice of the word had in mind its original meaning 
of ‘rotten’ or ‘corrupted’: for in a parallel passage of the com- 
panion epistle he says: ‘Let your speech be alway with grace, 
seasoned with salt’; the use of salt being not only to flavour, but to 
preserve. 

‘ But that which is good, for building up as need may be’. The 
words ‘edify’ and ‘edification’ have become so hackneyed, that it 
is almost necessary to avoid them in translation, if the Apostle’s 
language is to retain its original force. How vividly he realised the 
metaphor which he employed may be seen from a passage in the 
Epistle to the Romans, where he says, if we render his words 
literally : ‘Let us follow after the things that belong to peace and to 


1Jt is worth while to repeat Fuller’s 
comment quoted from Eadie by Dr 
Abbott (ad loc. p. 141): ‘Let us take 
the Apostle’s meaning rather than his 
words—withall possible speed to depose 
our passion; not understanding him 
so literally that we may take leave to 
be angry till sunset, then might our 
wrath lengthen with the days; and men 
in Greenland, where days last above a 
quarter of a year, have plentiful scope 
of revenge’. 


2 The Didaché, in a list of warnings 
directed against certain sins on the 
ground of what they ‘lead to’, says 
(c. ili): ‘Be not angry; for anger leads 
to murder: nor jealous, nor quarrel- 
some, nor passionate; for of all these 
things murders are bred’. In the same 
chapter comes another precept which 
it is interesting to compare with the 
sequence of St Paul’s injunctions in 
this place: ‘My child, be not a liar; 
since lying leads to thieving’. 





- 


IV 30] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


the building up of one another : do not for the sake of food pull down 


113 


God’s work’. Moreover in the present chapter he has twice spoken iv 12, 16 


of ‘the building up of the body’; while in an earlier chapter he has 
elaborated the metaphor of the building in relation to the Christian 
society. In the present passage he recurs to this metaphor, as 
in v. 25 he recurred to the figure of the body. Speech, like 
everything else, he would have us use for the help of others who 
are linked with us in the corporate life—‘ for building up as occasion 
may offer’, 

‘That tt may give grace unto the hearers’, The phrase to ‘give 
grace’ may also be rendered to ‘give gratification’: and this is 
certainly the idea which would at once be suggested to the ordinary 
Greek reader.. But to St Paul’s mind the deeper meaning of grace 
predominates. This is not the only place where he seems to play 
upon the various meanings of the Greek word for ‘grace’. Thus, 
for example, in the passage which we have quoted above from the 
Epistle to the Colossians, the obvious sense of his words to a Greek 
mind would be: ‘ Let your speech be always with graciousness’ or 
‘graceful charm’: and another instance will come before us later on 
in the present epistle’. 

‘And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto 
the day of redemption’. Each of St Paul’s injunctions is enforced 
by a grave consideration. Falsehood is inconsistent with member- 
ship in a Body. Cherished irritation makes room for the evil spirit. 
Stealing is the direct contrary of the labour that toils to help others. 
Speech that is corrupt not only pulls down instead of building up, 
but actually pains the Holy Spirit of God. 

The Spirit specially claims to find expression in the utterances 
of Christians, as St Paul tells us later on in this epistle, where he 


li 20 ff. 


Col. iv 6 


iv 30 


says: ‘ Be filled with the Spirit ; speaking to one another in psalms v 18 f. 


and hymns and spiritual songs’. The misuse of the organ of speech 
is accordingly a wrong done to, and felt by, the Spirit who claims to 
control it. The addition of the words, ‘whereby (or ‘in whom’) ye 
are sealed unto the day of redemption’, carries us back to the 


mention of the sealing of the Gentiles with ‘the holy Spirit of the i 13 


promise’, that is, the Spirit promised of old to the chosen people. 
This is the ‘one Spirit’, of which the Apostle says in an earlier 
epistle that ‘in one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body, 
whether Jews or Greeks’. Thus the Holy Spirit stands in the 
closest relation to the new corporate life, and is specially wronged 


1 See below, p. 116. For the various New Testaments see the detached note 
meanings of ‘grace’ in the Old and on ydpis. 


WPTIFSG 2 Q 


1 Cor. xii 
13 


114 


iv 31 f. 


Luke vi 
35 ff. 


EXPOSITION OF THE [IV 31—V 2 


when the opportunity of building it up becomes an occasion for its 
defilement and ruin. 

‘Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and evil 
speaking be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one 
to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ 
hath forgiven you’. The fifth injunction, to put away bitter feelings, 
and the quarrelling and evil-speaking to which they give rise, is 
enforced by an appeal to the character and action of God Himself. 
You must forgive each other, says the Apostle, because God in 
Christ has forgiven you all. 

‘ Be ye therefore followers (or ‘ imitators’) of God, as His beloved 
children’. ‘These words must be taken closely with what precedes, 
as well as with what follows. The imitation of God in His merciful- 
ness is the characteristic of sonship. ‘Love your enemies, and do 
them good, and lend hoping for nothing again; and your reward 
shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High; for He is 
kind to the unthankful and evil. Be merciful, even as your Father 
is merciful’, 

‘And walk im love, as Christ also hath loved you, and hath given 


Himself for you, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-— 


smelling savour’. The Apostle has invoked the Divine example 
first of all in regard to forgiveness. He now extends its reference 
by making it the basis of the wider command to ‘walk in love’, 
Take, he says, God as your pattern: copy Him; for you are His 
children whom He loves. Walk therefore in love—such love as 
Christ has shewn to you. 

For us, the love of God is supremely manifested in the love of 
Christ, who gave Himself up on our behalf, ‘an offering and a 
sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell’. We then are to love 
even as Christ loved us; that is, with the love that gives itself for 
others, the love of sacrifice. St Paul thus points to Christ’s sacrifice 
as an example of the love which Christians are to shew to one 
another. Your acts of love to one another, he implies, will be 
truly a sacrifice acceptable to God; even as the supreme act of 
Christ’s love to you is the supremely acceptable Sacrifice. 

Two passages may help to illustrate this teaching and the 
phraseology in which it is conveyed. One of these is found later 
on in this chapter, where the Apostle charges husbands to love 
their wives ‘even as Christ loved the church and gave Himself 
up for it’, The other offers us another example of the application 
of the sacrificial phraseology of the Old Testament to actions 
which manifest love. The language in which St Paul dignifies 
the kindness shewn to himself by the Philippian Church is strikingly 


\ 
4 


¥ 3) EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, IIs 


similar to that of our present passage: ‘Having received of Phil. iv 18 
Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of 
a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God’. 


3ButT fornication and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it v 3—14 
not even be named among you, as becometh saints; ‘neither 
filthiness nor foolish talking nor jesting, which are not befitting; 
but rather giving of thanks, 5For this ye know of a surety, 
that no fornicator nor unclean person, nor covetous man, which 
is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ 
and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words; for 
because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the 
children of disobedience. 7Be not ye therefore partakers with 
them. ®For ye were in time past darkness, but now are ye 
light in the Lord: walk as children of light: 9%for the fruit of 
light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth; *°proving 
what is acceptable unto the Lord. **And have no fellowship 
with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them: 
for of the things which are done of them in secret it is a 

_ shame even to speak; *3but all things when they are exposed 
by the light are made manifest ; for whatsoever is made manifest 
is light. *Wherefore it saith: 


Awake, thou that sleepest, 
And arise from the dead, 
And Christ shall shine upon thee. 


‘But fornication and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not V3 
even be named among you, as becometh saints’. The five prohibitions 
which have preceded stand side by side with no connecting particles 
to link them to each other. This, as a point of style, is far more 
unusual in Greek than it is in English. Accordingly the adversative 
particle with which the final prohibition is introduced deserves the 
more attention. The Apostle has called upon his readers to put 
away falsehood, irritation, theft, corrupt speech, bitter feelings. 
But, he seems to say, there is another class of sins which I do not 
even bid you put away: I say that you may not so much as name 
them one to another. 

‘As becometh saints’, He appeals to a new Christian decorum. ii 19 
*Ye are fellow-citizens with the saints’: nodlesse oblige. 


8—2 





116 EXPOSITION OF THE [V 4, 5 


v4 ‘ Neither filthiness nor foolish talking nor jesting, which are not 
befitting ; but rather giving of thanks’. The first of these nomina- 
tives might be taken with the preceding verb, ‘let it not even be 
named’; but not the other two. The meaning however is plain: 
‘neither let there be among you’ these things which degrade 
conversation, or at least relax its tone. Having summarily dismissed 
the grosser forms of sin, the Apostle forbids the approaches to them 
in unseemly talk, in foolishness of speech, even in mere frivolous 
jesting. The seemingly abrupt introduction of ‘thanksgiving’ in 
contrast to ‘jesting’ is due to a play upon the two words in the 
Greek which cannot be reproduced in translation. Instead of the 
lightness of witty talk, which played too often on the border-line of 
impropriety, theirs should be the true ‘grace’ of speech, the utter- 
ance of a ‘grace’ or thanksgiving to God’. He developes the 

vi8ff. thought at greater length below, when he contrasts the merriment 
of wine with the sober gladness of sacred psalmody. 

v5 ‘For this ye know of a surety, that no fornicator nor unclean 
person, nor covetous man, which is an idolater, hath any inheritance 
in the kingdom of Christ and of God’. St Paul has spoken of the 

i4 Gentile Christians as having received ‘the earnest of the inherit- 

iii 6 ance’, and as being ‘ fellow-heirs’ with the Jews. Here however he 
declares that those who commit the sins of which he has been 
speaking are thereby excluded from such inheritance. They have 
indeed practically returned to idolatry, and renounced Christ and 
God. They have disinherited themselves. 

This extension of the metaphor of ‘inheritance’ is a Hebrew 
form of speech which has passed over into the Greek of the New 
Testament. Thus we have in the Gospel the phrase ‘to inherit 
eternal life’*, The connexion of ‘inheritance’ with ‘the kingdom’ 
is found in Matt. xxv 34, ‘inherit the kingdom prepared for you’, 
and in James ii 5, ‘Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, 
rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom’, etc. In St Paul we find 
only the negative form of the phrase, as in 1 Cor. xv 50, ‘flesh 
and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God’. The two other 

1 Cor. vi passages in which it occurs present close parallels to our present 
a passage. ‘Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit 
the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor 
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves 
with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, 


+ For a similar play on the word x 25: comp. Tit. iii 7, The phrase 
‘grace’, see above p. 113. ‘to inherit life’ is found in Psalms 
* Mark x 17 and parallels, Luke of Solomon xiv 6. 
"] } 





V 5—8] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. a yf 


nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God’. And in closing 
his list of ‘the works of the flesh’ the Apostle says: ‘Of the which Gal. v 21 
I foretell you, as I have also foretold you, that they which do such 
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God’. This repetition 
might almost suggest that he was employing a formula of teaching 
which had become fixed and could be referred to as familiar: ‘ Know 
ye not?’, ‘I foretell you, as I have also foretold you’, ‘This ye 
know assuredly ’. 

‘The kingdom of Christ and of God’. The epithet ‘of God’ 
points to the nature of the kingdom, as opposed to a temporal 
kingdom: hence it is that in St Matthew’s Gospel the epithet 
‘of heaven’ can be so often substituted for it. The epithet ‘of 
Christ’ is more rare’: it points to the Messiah as ‘the king set upon Ps. ii 6 
the holy hill of Sion’, the Divine Son, the Anointed of Jehovah 
who reigns in His name. So St Paul says that ‘the Father...hath Col. i 13 
transplanted us into the kingdom of the Son of His love’. The 
two thoughts are brought into final harmony in 1 Oor. xv 24ff:: 
‘Then cometh the end, when He shall deliver up the kingdom to 
God, even the Father...that God may be all in all’. 

‘ Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these v 6 
things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience’. 
The Apostle recurs to language which he has used already: he has 
spoken of ‘the children (or ‘sons’) of disobedience’, and has called ii 2 f. 
them ‘children of (the Divine) wrath’. The wrath of God falls Comp. 
upon the heathen world especially on account of the sins of the Fees 
flesh which are closely connected with idolatry. 

‘ Be not ye therefore partakers with them: for ye were in time past v 7 t. 
darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord’. Having completed his 
list of special prohibitions, the Apostle returns to his general 
principle: Be not like the Gentiles. Once more he reminds his iv 17 
readers of what in time past they were, and of what they now are. Comp. ii 
They have been taken into a new fellowship, and cannot retain the 1 f 
old. The Gentiles whom they have left are still ‘darkened in their iv 18 
understanding’: but they themselves have been rescued ‘ out of the Col. i 12 f. 
power of darkness’, and ‘made meet to be partakers of the inherit- 
ance of the saints in light’. Here the Apostle does not say merely 
that they were in time past 7m the darkness and now are in the 
light: but, heightening his figure to the utmost, he speaks of them 
as once ‘darkness’, but now ‘light’, 


1 For ‘the kingdom of Christ’ in we have ‘Thy glory’), Luke i 33, xxii 
the Gospel compare Matt. xiii 41, 29f., xxiii 42, John xviii 36. See also 
xvi 28, xx 21 (where in Mark x 37 2 Pet. irz, Apoc. xi 15. 


118 


vs 


1 Thess. 
val. 


v9 


Gal. v 22 


¥ 17 


VII 
Gal. v 19, 


22 


vii ff. 


EXPOSITION OF THE [V 8—13 


‘ Walk as children of light’. We may compare St Paul’s words 
to the Thessalonians: ‘ But ye, brethren, are not in darkness...for 
ye are all children of light and children of the day’. While speaking 
of their position and privilege the Apostle has called them ‘light’ 
itself: now that he comes to speak of their conduct, he returns to 
his metaphor of ‘walking’, and bids them ‘walk as children of 
light’. 

‘ For the fruit of light is in all goodness and righteousness and 
truth’, With ‘the fruit of light’ in this passage we may compare 
‘the fruit of the Spirit’ in the Epistle to the Galatians. Indeed 
some manuscripts have transferred the latter phrase to this place, 
where it is found in our Authorised Version. 

‘ Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord’. These words belong 
in construction to the command ‘ Walk as children of light’, the 
intervening verse being a parenthesis, The light will enable them 
to test and discern the Lord’s will’. So below he bids them ‘ under- 
stand what the will of the Lord is’. 

‘And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness’. 
Just as in the Epistle to the Galatians the Apostle contrasted ‘the 
JSruit of the Spirit’ with ‘the works of the flesh’; so here, while he 
speaks of ‘the fruit of light’, he will not speak of ‘the fruit of 
darkness’, but of its ‘fruitless works’. 

‘ But rather expose them ; for of the things which are done of them 
in secret it is a shame even to speak ; but all things when they are 
exposed by the light are made manifest ; for whatsoever is made 
manifest is light’, The Apostle is not content with the negative 
precept which bids his readers abstain from association with the 
works of darkness. Being themselves of the nature of light, they 
must remember that it is the property of light to dispel darkness, to 
expose what is hidden and secret. Nay more, in the moral and 
spiritual world, the Apostle seems to say, light has a further power: 
it can actually transform the darkness. The hidden is darkness ; 
the manifested is light; by the action of light darkness itself can be 
turned into light. 

‘Ye were darkness’, he has said, ‘but now ye are light’: and 
this is only the beginning of a great series of recurring transforma- 
tions. You, the new light, have your part to play in the conversion 
of darkness into light. Right produces right: it rights wrong. 


Or, as St Paul prefers to say, light produces light: it lightens 
darkness, 


1 On the use of the title ‘the Lord’ in these places, see what has been 
said above pp. 72, go. 


V 14, 15] ' EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 11g 


‘ Wherefore it saith, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the v 14 
dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee’, This quotation is not to 
be found in any book that we know. It is probably a fragment of 
an early Christian hymn: possibly a baptismal hymn; or possibly 
again a hymn commemorating the descent of Christ into the under- 
world’, We may compare with it another fragment of early 
hymnology in 1 Tim. iii 16. 


‘STAKE therefore careful heed how ye walk, not as unwise V 5—33 
but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 
*7Wherefore be ye not fools, but understand what the will of 
the Lord is. *®And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess ; 
but be filled with the Spirit, **speaking to yourselves in psalms 
and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody 
with your heart to the Lord; *°giving thanks always for all 
things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ unto owr God and 
Father; **submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of 
Christ. **Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, 


1 Two early suggestions are of suffi- 
cient interest to be noted here. One 
is found as a note on the passage in 
John Damase. (quoted by Tischendorf): 
‘We have received by tradition that 
this is the voice to be sounded by the 
archangel’s trump to those who have 
fallen asleep since the world began’, 
The other is a story told by St Jerome 
(ad loc.): ‘I remember once hearing a 
preacher discourse on this passage in 
church. He wished to please the 
people by a startling novelty; so he 
said: This quotation is an utterance 
addressed to Adam, who was buried on 
Calvary (the place of a skull), where 
the Lord was crucified. It was called 
the place of a skull, because there the 
head of the firs’ man was buried. 
Accordingly at the time when the 
Lord was hanging on the cross over 
Adam’s sepulchre this prophecy was 
fulfilled which says: Awake, thou 
Adam that sleepest, and arise from the 
dead, and, not as we read it Christ 


shall shine upon thee [émipatoec], but 
Christ shall touch thee [émrufatcec]: 
because forsooth by the touch of His 
blood and His body that hung there 
he should be brought to life and 
should arise; and so that type also 
should be fulfilled of the dead Elisha 
raising the dead. Whether all this 
is true or not, I leave to the 
reader’s judgment. There is no doubt 
that the saying of it delighted the 
congregation; they applauded and 
stamped with their feet. All that I 
know is that such a meaning does 
not harmonise with the context of the 
passage’. There are other traces of 
the legend that Adam was buried on 
Calvary, which was regarded as the 
centre of the world. The skull often 
depicted at the foot of the crucifix is 
Adam’s skull. It is not impossible 
that the strange preacher was going 
on tradition in connecting the words 
with the release of Adam from Hades 
at the time of the Lord’s Descent. 


iv 1 
iv 17 


"xi 


v8 





EXPOSITION OF THE [V 15, 16 


as unto the Lord: 3for the husband is the head of the wife, 
even as Christ is the head of the church, being Himself the 
saviour of the body. *But as the church is subject unto 
Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in every thing. 
*sHusbands, love your wives, even as Christ -also loved the 
church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify 
it, cleansing it by the washing of water with the word; 27that 
He might present the church to Himself all-glorious, not 
having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should 
be holy and without blemish. **So ought the husbands also to 
love their wives as their own bodies: he that loveth his wife 
loveth himself; 79for no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but 
nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ the church; 2°for 
we are members of His body. 3*For this cause shall a man 
leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, 
and they two shall be one flesh. 3?This mystery is great; but 
I speak 7¢ concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let 


‘ every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; 


and the wife see that she reverence her husband. 


‘Take therefore careful heed how ye walk, not as unwise but as 
wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil’. In his desire to 
pursue his metaphor of the conflict between light and darkness the 
Apostle has been led away from his practical precepts of conduct. 
To these he now returns, and he marks his return by once more 
using the verb ‘to walk’. Four times already he has used it with a 
special emphasis in this and the preceding chapter: ‘I beseech you 
that ye walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye are called’: ‘T 
protest that ye no longer walk as do the Gentiles walk’: ‘Be 
followers of God, as His beloved children, and walk in love, as 
Christ also hath loved you’: ‘Once ye were darkness, now ye are 
light ; walk as children of light’. And now he sums up what he 
has just been saying, and prepares the way for further injunctions, 
in the emphatic words, ‘ Take therefore careful heed how ye walk’’. 

The contrast between the darkness and the light finds practical 
expression in the phrase ‘not as unwise, but as wise’. The power 
of the light to transform the darkness suggests that the wise have a 


1 The rendering of the Authorised  spectly’, is based on a slightly dif- 
Version, ‘See that ye walk cireum- ferent reading of the original. 





V 17, 18] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 121 


mission to redeem the time in which they live. ‘The days are evil’ 
indeed, and the unwise are borne along in the drift of wickedness. 
The wise may stand their ground ‘in the evil day’: nay more, they 
may ransom the time from loss or misuse, release it from the bondage 
of evil and claim it for the highest good. Thus the redemptive 
power of the new faith finds a fresh illustration. There is a Divine 
purpose making for good in the midst of evil: the children of light 
can perceive it and follow its guidance, ‘proving what is well- 
pleasing to the Lord’. Only heedless folly can miss it: ‘ Wherefore’, v 17 
he adds, ‘be ye not fools, but understand what the will of the 
Lord is’, 

‘And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess’, Elsewhere v 18 
this last word is translated ‘riot’, The Apostle’s meaning is that Tit. i 6; 
drunkenness leads to excess in a more general sense, to dissolute- ' Pe !¥ 4 
ness and ruin. The actual words ‘Be not drunk with wine’ are 
borrowed, as other precepts have been borrowed in the former 
chapter, from the Old Testament’. They are found in the Greek 
translation of Proverbs xxiii 31, where they are followed by the 
contrast, ‘but converse with righteous men ’?, 

‘But be filled with the Spwrit’; more literally ‘in’ or ‘ through 
the Spirit’, There is a fulness, which is above all carnal satis- 
faction ; a spiritual fulness wrought by the Holy Spirit. It issues 
not, as fulness of wine, in disorder and moral wreck, but in a 
gladness of cheerful intercourse, psalm and hymn and spiritual 
- song, a melody of hearts chanting to the Lord. 

The first age of the Christian Church was characterised by a 
vivid enthusiasm which found expression in ways which recall the 
simplicity of childhood. It was a period of wonder and delight. 

The floodgates of emotion were opened: a supernatural dread 
alternated with an unspeakable joy. Thus we read at one moment Acts ii 43, 
that ‘fear came upon every soul’, and at the next that ‘they did eat 4° 
their meat with exultation and simplicity of heart’. ‘Great fear’ v 5, 11 
results from a Divine manifestation of judgment: ‘ great joy’ from a viii 8 
Divine manifestation of healing power. Thus ‘the Church went in ix 31 
the fear of the Lord and in the consolation of the Holy Spirit’. The 
Apostles openly rejoiced as they left the council that they had been v 41 
allowed to suffer for the Name: Paul and Silas in the prison at xvi 25 
Philippi prayed and sang hymns to God, so that the prisoners heard 
them. Nowhere in literature is the transition from passionate grief 

to enthusiastic delight more glowingly pourtrayed than in St Paul’s 


1 See above on iv 25 f. is quite different: ‘Look not thou 
2 The Hebrew text of the passage upon the wine when it is red’, etc. 


— 
i) 
i) 


v 19 ff. 





EXPOSITION OF THE [V 19, 20 


second epistle to the Corinthian Church. From such a writer in 
such an age we can understand the combination of the precepts to 
set free the emotion of a perpetual thankfulness in outbursts of 
hearty song, and at the same time to preserve the orderliness of 
social relations under the influence of an overmastering awe: ‘ speak- 
ing to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing 
and making melody with your heart to the Lord; giving thanks 
always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ unto 
our God and Father ; submitting yourselves one to another in the fear 
of Christ’. 

The implied contrast with the revelry of drunkenness makes it 
plain that in speaking of Christian psalmody the Apostle is not 
primarily referring to public worship, but to social gatherings in 
which a common meal was accompanied by sacred song. For the 
early Christians these gatherings took the place of the many 
public feasts in the Greek cities from which they found themselves 
necessarily excluded, by reason of the idolatrous rites with which 
such banquets were associated. The agapae, or charity-suppers, 
afforded an opportunity by which the richer members of the com- 
munity could gather their poorer brethren in hospitable fellowship. 
In the earliest times these suppers were hallowed by the solemn 
‘breaking of the bread’, followed by singing, exhortations and 
prayers. And even when the Eucharist of the Church had ceased 
to be connected with a common supper, these banquets retained a 
semi-eucharistic character, and the element of praise and thanks- 
giving still held an important place in them. 

‘Gwing thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ unto our God and Father’. The parallel passage in 
the companion epistle enforces the duty of thanksgiving no less 
forcibly. After urging upon the Colossians gentleness, forgiveness 


ea iii 15 and peace, he proceeds: ‘And be ye thankful. Let the word of 


Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom: teaching and admonishing 
one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs with grace, 
singing in your hearts to God: and whatsoever ye do in word or in 
deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks unto God 
the Father through Him’, 

The expression, which occurs in both these passages, ‘in the 
name of’, corresponds to the reiterated expressions ‘im Christ’ and 
‘an the Lord’. Believers are in Him: they must speak and act in 
His name. 

‘ Unto our God and Father’. The rendering in the Authorised 
Version, ‘unto God and the Father’, does not satisfactorily represent 


the original, which means ‘to Him who is at once God and the t 


] 


V 25; 23] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 123 


Father’. We are to give thanks to God, who in Christ has now 
been revealed to us as ‘the Father’. 

‘ Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ’. The v 21 
enthusiasm of which the Apostle has spoken is far removed from 
fanaticism. The glad life of the Christian community is a life of 
duly constituted order. The Apostle of liberty is the Apostle of 
order and subordination, This is strikingly illustrated by the fact 
that the verb ‘to submit oneself’ (often rendered ‘ to be subject’) is 
used twenty-three times by St Paul. If we except 1 St Peter, which 
is not independent of St Paul’s epistles, it occurs but nine times in 
the rest of the New Testament. We may recall a few passages: 
‘Let every soul be subject to the higher powers’; ‘The spirits of Rom. xiii 
the prophets are subject to the prophets’; ‘Then shall even the ; eae 
Son Himself be subject to Him that hath subjected all things ~ ’ 
unto Him’. 

Recognise, says the Apostle, that in the Divine ordering of 
human life one is subject to another, We must not press this to 
mean that even the highest is in some sense subject to those who 
are beneath him. St Jerome indeed takes this view, and proceeds 
to commend the passage to bishops, with whom he sometimes found 
himself in collision. But the Apostle is careful in what follows to 
make his meaning abundantly clear, and does not stultify his precept 
by telling husbands to be subject to their wives, but to love them ; 
nor parents to be subject to their children, but to nurture them in 
the discipline of the Lord. 

The motive of due subordination is given in the remarkable 
phrase ‘the fear of Christ’. In the Old Testament the guiding 
principle of human life is again and again declared to be ‘the fear 
of the Lord’, or ‘the fear of God’, This is ‘the beginning of 
wisdom’, and ‘the whole duty of man’. St Paul boldly recasts 
the principle for the Christian society in the unique expression ‘the 
fear of Christ’. He will interpret his meaning as he shews by 
repeated illustrations that the authority which corresponds to 
natural relationships finds its pattern and its sanction in the 
authority of Christ over His Church. 

‘ Wives, submit yourselves wnto your own husbands, as unto the v 22 
Lord’. Waving struck the key-note of subordination—the recogni- 
tion of the sacred principles of authority and obedience—the Apostle 
proceeds to give a series of positive precepts for the regulation of 
social life, which is divinely founded on the unchanging institution 
of the family. He deals in turn with the duties of wives and 
husbands, of children and parents, of servants and masters; 
beginning in each case with the responsibility of obedience, and 


124 


iii 14 f. 


V 23 f. 


1 Cor. xii 
12 








EXPOSITION OF THE [V 23—25 


passing from that to the responsibility which rests on those to 
whom obedience is due. Those who obey must obey as though 
they were obeying Christ: those who are obeyed must find the 
pattern of their conduct in the love and care of Christ, and must 
remember that they themselves owe obedience in their turn to 
Christ. 

The thought of the parallel between earthly and heavenly 
relationships has already found expression at an early point in 
the epistle, where the Apostle speaks of ‘the Father from whom 
all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named’. In the present 
passage it leads him back to his special topic of the relation of 
Christ to the Church as a whole. It enables him to link the 
simplest precepts of social morality with the most transcendent 
doctrines of the Christian faith. The common life of the home is 
discovered to be fraught with a far-reaching mystery. The natural 
relationships are hallowed by their heavenly patterns. 

‘ For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ és the head 
of the church, being Himself the saviour of the body’. This last 
clause is added to interpret the special sense in which Christ is here 
called ‘the head of the church’. We have already had occasion to 
observe that this metaphor of headship does not to St Paul’s mind 
exhaustively express the relation of Christ to His Body’. For, in 
fact, Christ is more than the Head: He is the Whole of which 
His members are parts. ‘For as the body is one and hath many 
members, and all the members’—including the head—‘are one 
body: so also is the Christ’. To this more intimate relation, not 
of headship, but of identification, the Apostle will point us a little 
later on in this passage. For the moment he contents himself with 
explaining the special thought which he has here in view. ‘Christ 
is the head of the church, as being Himself the saviour of the body’. 
It is the function of the head to plan the safety of the body, to 
secure it from danger and to provide for its welfare. In the highest 
sense this function is fulfilled by Christ for the Church: in a lower 
sense it is fulfilled by the husband for the wife. In either case the 
responsibility to protect is inseparably linked with the right to rule: 
the head is obeyed by the body. This is the Apostle’s point; and 
accordingly he checks himself, as it were, from a fuller exposition of 
the thoughts towards which he is being led: ‘bwé’—for this is the 
matter in hand—‘as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the 
wives be to their husbands in every thing’. 

‘ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, 
and gave Himself for it’. Subordination must be met by love. The 

1 See above pp. 41 f., 103. 


LN ey 37] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


relation of Christ to the Church still supplies the heavenly pattern. 
‘Hast thou seen’, says St Chrysostom, ‘the measure of obedience? 
hear also the measure of love’. 

Just as the Apostle interpreted the headship of Christ by the 
insertion of the clause ‘being Himself the saviour of the body’; so 
here he interprets the love of Christ by a group of sentences which 
lift him for the moment high above his immediate theme. 

‘Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it’. This is a 
repetition of words which he has used already in urging the general 
duty of love: ‘Christ loved us, and gave Himself for us’. Here, as 
there, the love is defined as the love of self-surrender: but the 
sequel is different: there it was that He might Himself be a sweet- 
smelling offering to God; here it is that He might hallow and 
cleanse His Bride the Church. 

‘That He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of water 
with the word’, We are reminded of St Paul’s appeal to the 
Corinthians: ‘Such were some of you ’—fornicators, idolaters, and 
the like: ‘but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were 
justified, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of 
our God’. 

The ‘word’ that is here spoken of as accompanying ‘the 
washing of water’ is plainly some solemn mention of ‘the name 
of the Lord Jesus’, in which they ‘ were washed’ from their former 
sins. The candidate for baptism confessed his faith in the Name: 
the rite of baptism was administered in the Name. The actual 
phrase which is here used is vague: literally translated it is ‘in a 
word’: that is to say, accompanied by a solemn word or formula, 
which expressed the intention of baptiser and baptised, and thus 
gave its spiritual meaning to ‘the washing of water’. The purpose 
of Christ was accordingly that He might hallow His Bride by the 
cleansing waters of a sacrament in which, in response to her confes- 
sion, His Name was laid upon her, 

‘That He might present the church to Himself all-glorious, not 
having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy 
and without blemish’, More literally, ‘that He might Himself 
present the church to Himself, glorious’, etc. We may contrast 
the language which the Apostle uses to the Corinthian Church: 
‘J am jealous over you with the jealousy of God; for I betrothed 
you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ’. 
Here no human agency is allowed to intervene. The heavenly 
Bridegroom cleanses and sanctifies the Church His Bride, and then 
Himself presents her to Himself in the glory of immaculate beauty 
and unfading youth. 





V2 


Vv 26 


1 Cor. virr 


2 Cor. xi2z 


126 EXPOSITION OF THE [V 28—32 


Such is the love of the Divine Husband to His Bride, of Christ 

v 28 the Head to His own Body the Church. ‘So ought the husbands also 
to love their wives as their own bodies’. The conclusion follows at 
once, if indeed it be true that the husband is the head, and the wife 
the body. Nay, the relation is if possible more intimate still: the 

v29f man isin fact loving himself. ‘He that loveth his wife loveth himself: 
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth 
it, even as Christ the church ; for we are members of His body’. The 
Apostle is gradually passing away from the thought of headship to 
the more mysterious thought of complete oneness. This thought he 
will not expand: he will only point to it as the spiritual significance 
of the fundamental principle enunciated from the beginning in the 

Gen. ii2, words ‘they two shall be one flesh’, Some manuscripts anticipate 
his reference to the book of Genesis by inserting at this place ‘of 
His flesh and of His bones’. But the words appear to be a gloss, 
and the passage is complete without them. 

Vv 31 ‘ For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall 
be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh’. To these 
words our Lord appeals in the Gospel, when He is confronted by the 

Mark x 7 comparative laxity of the Mosaic legislation in regard to divorce. 

ff. ‘They are no more twain’, is the conclusion He draws, ‘but one 
flesh: what therefore God hath joined together let not man put 
asunder’. St Paul makes his appeal to the same words with a 
different purpose. He is justifying his statement that ‘he that 
loveth his wife loveth himself’, This must be so, he declares, for it 
is written, ‘they two shall be one flesh’. But if it be true in the 
natural sphere, it is true also of the heavenly pattern. Hence he 

V 32 adds: ‘This mystery is great; but I speak it concerning Christ and 
the church’. The Apostle does not mean that the complete union 
of husband and wife as ‘one flesh’, which is declared in the words 
which he has cited, is a very mysterious thing, hard to be understood. 
In English we can speak of ‘a great mystery’ in this sense, using the 
epithet ‘great’ simply to emphasise or heighten the word to which 
it is attached; as in the familiar phrases ‘a great inconvenience’, 
‘a great pity’. But the corresponding word in Greek is not so 
used: it retains its proper meaning of magnitude or importance: so 
that ‘a great mystery ’ means ‘an important or far-reaching mystery’. 
Here the word ‘mystery’ probably signifies either something which 
contains a secret meaning not obvious to all, or the secret meaning 
itself. Accordingly the Apostle’s words mean either that the state- 
ment which he has quoted is a symbolical statement of wide import, 
or that the secret meaning therein contained is of wide import. In 
either case he is practically saying: There is more here than appears \ 





V 33—VI1 1] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 127 


on the surface; there is an inner meaning of high importance: 
I speak it—or, I use the words—of Christ and the Church. 
In conclusion he returns to the practical lesson which it is the 
duty of his readers to draw for themselves in daily life. ‘ Neverthe- v 33 
less let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; 
and the wife see that she reverence her husband’. The word translated 
‘reverence’ would be more literally rendered ‘fear’. At the close 
of the section the Apostle strikes again the key-note with which he 
began. ‘The fear of Christ’—the fear of the Church for Christ v 2: 
which is the pattern of the fear of the wife for her husband—is no 
slavish fear, but a fear of reverence. Just as the word is often 
applied in the Old Testament to the reverence due to God, so it is 
used of the reverence due to parents: ‘ Ye shall fear every man his Lev. xix 3 
mother, and his father’. Moreover, of Joshua it is said, ‘they Josh. iv 14 
feared him, as they feared Moses, all the days of his life’: and in 


Proverbs we read, ‘My son, fear thou the Lord and the king’. dia xiv 


*CHILDREN, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is vir—9 
right. *Honour thy father and mother; which is the first 
commandment with promise; 3that it may be well with thee, 
and thou mayest live long on the earth. +And, ye fathers, 
provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in 
the discipline and admonition of the Lord. 

sServants, be obedient to your masters according to the 
flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, 
as to Christ; ®not with eyeservice as menpleasers, but as 
servants of Christ, 7doing the will of God; doing service 
heartily with good-will, as to the Lord, and not to men: 
®knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the 
same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or 
free. 9And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, for- 
bearing threatening; knowing that both their Master and 
yours is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with 
him. 


‘Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this 1s right’, or vit 
‘righteous’. The precept accords at once with natural right, and 
with the righteousness enforced by the Divine law. That the latter 
point of view is not excluded is shewn by the citation from the 
Decalogue. 


128 


vi 2 f. 


Lev. xix 
1 ff. 


Rom. i 30 
2 Tim. iii2 


 vi4 


Vi 5 


Gal. iii 28 


EXPOSITION OF THE [VI 2—s 


‘Honour thy father and mother ; which is the first command- 
ment with promise ; that it may be well with thee, and thow mayest 
live long on the earth’. The importance of this obligation in the 
Mosaic legislation may be seen by the prominent place which it 
holds in the following passage of the Book of Leviticus: ‘Speak 
unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto 
them: Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy. Ye 
shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep My 
sabbaths: I am the Lord your God’. 

In characterising the Gentiles of whom he thrice says that 
‘God gave them up’, the Apostle notes among other signs of their 
depravity that they were ‘disobedient to parents’. Similarly the 
evil men of ‘the last days’ are described as ‘disobedient to parents’ 
and ‘ without natural affection’. 

Obedience is to be rendered ‘im the Lord’. Although the 
Apostle does not expand the thought, he returns in this expression 
to the key-note which was first struck in the phrase ‘in the fear 
of Christ’. 

‘And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath; but bring 
them wp im the discipline and admonition of the Lord’. After 
insisting on obedience, the Apostle enforces the right exercise of 
authority. His demand is not only negative—the avoidance of 
a capricious exercise of authority, which irritates and disheartens 
the child (compare Col, iii 21, ‘lest they be discouraged’): but it 
is also positive. For parents are as much bound to insist on 
obedience as children are to render it. There is a ‘discipline of 
the Lord’ which is the responsibility of the parent, just as obedience 
‘in the Lord’ is the duty of the child. 

‘Servants (slaves), be obedient to your masters (lords) according 
to the flesh’, This passage gains in force when we observe that 
in several instances the same Greek word is repeated where in 
English a variety of renderings is almost unavoidable. Thus the 
word which in v. 1 has been rendered ‘obey’ must here be rendered 
‘be obedient to’, in order to bring out the parallel ‘ (obedient) to 
your masters...as to Christ’. Again, the Greek has throughout the 
same word for ‘master’ and for ‘Lord’; and in like manner the 
same word for ‘servant’ and for ‘bond’. This latter word might 
equally well be rendered ‘slave’: for it is bondservice that is 
primarily intended. 

‘With fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as to 
Christ’. The relation of slaves to their masters offered a problem 
which could not be overlooked in the new Christian society. The 
spiritual liberty and equality proclaimed by St Paul—‘there can 


VI 6—9] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 129 


be no bond nor free...for all of you are one man in Christ Jesus ’— 
might easily be misinterpreted with disastrous results, The Apostle 

of liberty, however, was, as we have already seen, the Apostle of 
order. Spiritual freedom was to him not inconsistent with subjec- 
tion ‘in the fear of Christ’, Accordingly he rules out at once in v 21 
the plainest terms the notion that the Gospel affords any pretext 

to the slave for insubordination or for a careless attitude towards 
his earthly master. On the contrary he declares that the Gospel 
heightens obligations, by regarding the service rendered to the 
earthly lord as service rendered to the heavenly Lord. It thus 
brought a new meaning into the life of the Christian slave. He 
was Christ’s slave, doing God’s will in his daily tasks, This con- 
sideration would affect the thoroughness of his work: ‘not with vi 6f. 
eyeservice as menpleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will 

of God’: and also its temper: ‘doing service heartily with good- 
will, as to the Lord, and not to men’. A further thought of 
encouragement is added. Work has its value and its reward, 
whether the condition of the worker be bond or free: whatever 
good has been done, whether by slave or by master, will be repaid 

by the Master of both alike: ‘knowing that whatsoever good thing vi 8 
any man doeth, the same shall he recewe of the Lord, whether he be 

_ bond or free’. 
If the burden of hopelessness is thus lifted from the slave, 
a new burden of responsibility is fastened on the shoulders of 
the master. Willing and thorough service must be met by 
a kindly and considerate rule: ‘And, ye masters, do the same vig 
things unto them, forbearing threatening; knowing that both their 
Master and yours is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons 
with Him’. 
If we are to judge aright the message which the Gospel brought 
to the slave in apostolic days, we must needs make an effort of 
the historical imagination. For we of the present time think of 
_ the institution of slavery in the lurid light of the African slave- 

traffic and its attendant horrors. It is not solely the ownership 
- of one man by another man which revolts us. It is still more 
the crushing of a savage by a civilised race, and the treating of 
a black man as less than human by a white. But the Greek 
slave at Corinth was not separated by so wide and deep a gulf 
from his master ; nor was his lot so intolerable as the term slavery 
suggests to modern ears. If it had been, then surely we should 
have found St Paul proclaiming to Christian masters the immediate 
duty of emancipating their slaves. He does not, however, speak 
of slavery as a social evil crying for a remedy. Philemon indeed 


EPHES.? 9 





130 


EXPOSITION OF THE [VI 10 


Philem. 16 is to treat Onesimus as ‘more than a slave, a brother beloved’: 


Vi 1o—20 


but Onesimus must go back to Philemon. Apostolic Christianity 
did not present itself to the world with a social programme of 
reform. It undertook to create a new human unity under present 
conditions, teaching master and slave that they were members of 
the same body, sharers in a common life, both alike related to. 
one Lord. It strove to make this human unity—the one new 
Man—a visible reality in the Christian Church. It dealt with 
the conditions which it found, and shewed how they might be 
turned by master and slave alike into opportunities for ‘doing 
good’ which would be rewarded by the common Master of them 
both. At the same time it planted a seed which was to grow in 
secret to a distant and glorious harvest. 


*OFINALLY, be strong in the Lord, and in the might of 
His strength. Put on the armour of God, that ye may be 
able to stand against the wiles of the devil. +*For we wrestle 
not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, 
against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this 
world, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly 
places. *3Wherefore take unto you the armour of God, that 
ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done 
all to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about 
with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, 
and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of 
peace; *°withal taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall 
be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 
17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the 
Spirit, which is the word of God, **with all prayer and sup- 
plication praying always in the Spirit, and watching thereunto 
with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints; 9and 
for me, that utterance may be given unto me, in the opening 
of my mouth to make known with boldness the mystery of the 
gospel, ?°for which I am an ambassador in bonds; that therein 
I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. 


As we approach the close of the epistle it is well that we 
should look back and try to realise its main drift. The Apostle 
began with a disclosure of the great purpose of God for the world— 


VI 10] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 131 


the gathering into one of all things in the Christ. He prayed that i 10 
his readers might have the eyes of their hearts opened to see and i 18 
understand this purpose and their own share in the realisation of 

it. He shewed that while hitherto they, as Gentiles, had stood ii 11 ff. 
outside the sphere of the special development of the purpose, they 

were now no longer outside it, but within. For a new beginning 

had been made: Jew and Gentile had been welded together in 
Christ to form God’s New Man. The proclamation of this oneness iii r ff. 
of mankind in Christ was the mission which was specially entrusted 

to St Paul, and for which he was in bonds. That they should 
know and understand all this was his earnest prayer, as their 
knowledge of it was an essential preliminary of its realisation. 
Having been given this unity, they must keep it. They had been iv 3 
called to be parts of the One Man, to be limbs of the Body through 
which Christ was fulfilling Himself; and this consideration must 

rule their life in every detail. Here was the ground of the distinc- 

tion of functions in the various members of the Body: some were iv 11 ff. 
given by Christ to be apostles, others to be prophets, and so forth, 

to fit the saints as a whole for the service which they were called 

to render, and to forward the building of the Body of the Christ ; 

till all should meet in one grown Man, who should at length have 
reached the complete stature of the fulness of the Christ. Here 

too was the ground of the commonest of obligations: the reason, 

for example, why they should not lie to one another was that they iv 2s 
were members one of another. The positive duties of social life 
found their sanction in the same doctrine of unity in the Christ: 

the reason why wives should be subject to their husbands, and why vy 22 


_ husbands should love their wives, was that husband and wife stand 


to each other even as Christ and the Church; in a relation of 
authority and obedience, and yet in a relation of perfect oneness— 

not twain, but one. Children and parents, slaves and masters, were vi 1 ff. 
in like manner to exemplify the ordered harmony of the new life 

in Christ. 

At last he draws to a close. He comes back from these special 
injunctions which deal with particular relationships to a general 
exhortation which concerns the whole. For there is one thing 
more to be said. It is not enough to remember that harmony 
and mutual helpfulness are the conditions of the Body’s growth 
and health. If all be well within, there is yet an outside foe to 
be continually faced. A struggle is to be maintained with no 
visible human enemy, but with superhuman and invisible forces 
of evil. And for this conflict a divine strength is needed, God’s 
New Man must be clad in the very armour of God. 


o-— 


132 
vi 1of, 


i 19f. 


V1 II 


vi 13 


vi 12 


121 


iii 10 


Col. i 16 


EXPOSITION OF THE [VI 10—12 


‘ Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the might of Hrs strength. 
Put on the armour of God’. This note of strength was sounded 
at the outset. The Apostle prayed that they might know ‘the ex- 
ceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, according to 
the working of the might of His strength, which He hath wrought 
in Christ’, as the Resurrection and Ascension have testified. There 
the triumph of Christ occupied the Apostle’s mind: Christ’s exalta- 
tion in the heavenly sphere above all forces, good or evil, of the 
spiritual world. Here he has in view the need of the same mighty 
strength, in order that the Church may realise and consummate 
that triumph. A comparison of the two passages will shew how 
much of the earlier language is repeated in this final charge. 

‘Put on the armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against 
the wiles of the devil’. The word ‘whole’ which is inserted in the 
Authorised Version is redundant, and tends to obscure the Apostle’s 
meaning. It is God’s panoply, or armour, which must be put on. 
The divineness, rather than the completeness, of the outfit is em- 
phasised: and this becomes clear when the phrase is repeated and 
explained later on. The contrast here is between ‘the armour of 
God’ and ‘the wiles of the devil’: and the Apostle is led by this 
latter phrase to define more expressly the nature of the conflict’. 

‘For we wrestle not against flesh and blood’: literally, ‘for to 
us the wrestling is not against blood and flesh’. The emphasis falls 
on the personal pronoun: ‘we have not to wrestle with a human 
foe’: not on the metaphor of wrestling, which is only introduced 
by the way, and is not further alluded to. 

‘But against the principalities, against the powers, against the 
rulers of the darkness of this world, against the spiritual hosts of 
wickedness im the heavenly places’, We have seen already that 
St Paul speaks in the language of his time when he describes the 
world as subject to spiritual powers who have fallen from their 
first estate and are in rebellion against God. In his first mention 
of them he left it open to us to regard them as not necessarily evil 
powers: his one point was that whatever they might be Christ 
was exalted above them all in the heavenly sphere. In a later 
passage he spoke of them again in neutral language, as watching 
the development of God’s eternal purpose for man, and learning 
‘through the Church the very-varied wisdom of God’. Similarly 
in the companion epistle he declares that they have all been 
created in Christ; and some of them at least appear to be not 


1 So Wiclif renders rightly, ‘Clothe you with the armure of God’; and — 


Tyndale, ‘Put on the armour of God’, ¥ 


VI 12—14] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 133 


irretrievably lost, but to be included in the reconciliation of ‘ things 

in earth and things in heaven’. In a later passage indeed they Ool. ii 15 
appear as enemies over whom Christ has triumphed: and this is 

in harmony with the words which we are now considering. For 

here they are declared to be the dangerous foe which meets the 
Church in that heavenly sphere, the invisible world, in which the 
spiritual life is lived’. 

‘ Wherefore take unto you the armour of God, that ye may be vi 13 
able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand’. 
The Apostle returns to his original metaphor of warfare, which he 
will now proceed to expand. The struggle is with a superhuman 
foe, and necessitates a superhuman armour. Terrible as is the 
foe, the Apostle never doubts for a moment of the issue of the 
conflict. The battle has been already won by Christ Himself, 
who on His cross stripped off and flung aside the principalities Col. ii 15 
and the powers and put them to open shame. His triumph has 
to be realised in His Body the Church. He was pictured by the 
prophets as the Divine warrior who came forth clad in Divine 
armour to battle with iniquity. In the same armour He goes 
forth again in the person of His Church, ‘conquering and to con- Apoc. vi2 
quer’. Hence the Apostle never contemplates the possibility of 
defeat : he is but pointing the way to a victory which needs to 
be consummated. 

‘Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and vi 14 
having on the breastplate of righteousness’. The panoply, or suit 
of armour, of the Roman heavy infantry is fully described for us 
by Polybius, who enters into its minutest details*, St Paul in 
this passage, as we have said, lays no stress on the completeness 
of the outfit: indeed he omits two of its essential portions, the 
greaves and the spear; while on the other hand he emphasises 
the need of being girded and shod, requirements of all active 
service, and by no means peculiar to the soldier. The fact is 
that, as his language proves, he is thinking far less of the Roman 
soldiers, who from time to time had guarded him, than of the 
Divine warrior who was depicted more than once by the Old 

- Testament prophets. 

Two passages of the Book of Isaiah were specially in his 
mind. In one the prophet has described what was indeed ‘an 
evil day’: 


1 See above, pp. 20ff., 49,80. On St Paul to contemporary thought’, 
the whole subject the reader may especially the chapter on ‘The world 
consult with advantage Mr H. St J. of spirits’. 

Thackeray’s essay on ‘ The relation of 2 Polybius vi 23. 





134 


Isa. lix 
14 ff. 


Isa. xi 4 f. 


Wisd. v 
17 fi. 


EXPOSITION OF THE [VI 14 


Judgment is turned away backward, 

And righteousness standeth afar off: 

For truth is fallen in the street, 

And uprightness cannot enter. 

Yea, truth is lacking ; 

And he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: 

And the Lord saw it, and it displeased Him that there was 
no judgment. 


Then the Divine warrior steps forth to do battle with iniquity : 


He saw that there was no man, 

And wondered that there was none to interpose : 
Therefore His own arm brought salvation to Him; 
And His righteousness, it upheld Him. 

And He put on righteousness as a breastplate, 

And an helmet of salvation upon His head ; 

And He put on garments of vengeance for clothing, 
And was clad with zeal as a cloke. 


An earlier prophecy had pictured the Divine King of the future 
as anointed with the sevenfold Spirit, and going forth to make first 
war, and then peace, in the earth: 


He shall smite the earth with the word of His mouth’; 

And with the Spirit through His lips shall He slay the 
wicked : 

And He shall have His loins girt about with righteousness, 

And His reins girdled with truth. 


A notable passage in the Book of Wisdom shews how these 
descriptions of ‘the armour of God’ had impressed themselves on 
the mind of another Jew besides St Paul: 


He shall take His jealousy as a panoply, 

And shall make the whole creation His weapons for vengeance 
on His enemies: 

He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate, 

And shall array Himself with judgment unfeigned as with 
a helmet ; 

He shall take holiness as an invincible shield, 

And He shall sharpen stern wrath as a sword. 


The Apostle does not hesitate, then, to take the words of 
ancient prophecy and transfer them from God and the Divine 
representative King to the New Man in Christ, whom he arms 


1 So the Greek Bible renders it. 





VI 14—17] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 135 


for the same conflict with the very ‘armour of God’. In so doing 
he was in harmony with the spirit of the prophet of old. For the 
voice which cried, ‘Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Isa. lig; 
Lord’, cried also, ‘ Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Sion’, “7 
‘And your feet shod with the preparation (or, ‘ readiness’) of the vi 15 
gospel of peace’: prepared, as it were, from the outset to announce 
peace as the outcome of victory. The readiness of the messenger 
of peace is a thought derived from another passage of the Book 
of Isaiah : ‘ How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him Isa. lii 7 
that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace ; that bringeth 
good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto 
Zion, Thy God reigneth !’ 
‘ Withal taking the shield of farth, wherewith ye shall be able to vi 16f. 
quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one: and take the helmet 
of salvation and the sword of the Spirit’. Girded, guarded, and 
shod, with truth, with righteousness, and with readiness to publish 
the good tidings of peace: while all that the foe can see is the 
great oblong shield, the crested helm, and the pointed two-edged 
blade—the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword 
of the Spirit. 
‘The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God’. The 
comparison of speech to a sword is frequent in the Old Testament : 
‘whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp Pg, lvii 4; 
sword’: ‘who have whet their tongue like a sword, and shoot out !*iv 3 
their arrows, even bitter words’: ‘He hath made my mouth like Isa, xlix 2 
a sharp sword’. And in the Apocalypse Christ is represented as Apoc.i16; 
having a sword proceeding out of His mouth. The passage which *!* 15 
is immediately in the Apostle’s mind is one which we have already 
quoted: ‘ He shall smite the earth with the word of His mouth, Isa. xi 4 
and with the Spirit (or, breath) through His lips shall He slay 
the wicked’. St Paul gathers up these words into a new combina- 
tion, ‘the sword of the Spirit, which is the word (or, utterance) 
of God’. 
The word of God, as uttered through His prophets, is spoken 
of as an instrument of vengeance: ‘ Therefore have I hewed them Hos. vi 5 
by the prophets: I have slain them by the words of My mouth’. 
But from such a thought as this the Apostle rapidly passed to the 
mention of prayer as the natural utterance of Christian lips, and 
the effective instrument of success in the conflict with evil. We 
may note the repetition : ‘the sword of the Spirit.,.praying in the 
Spirit’. It is almost as though the Apostle had said, For the 
Divine warrior the sword of the Spirit is His own utterance which 
puts His enemies to flight: for you it is the utterance of prayer 


136 


Rom. viii 
15, 26f. 


vi 19f. 


Col. iv 2 fi. 


vi 2I—24 


Col. iv 7 


Acts xx 4 


EXPOSITION OF THE [VI 17—20 


in the Spirit. If this is not clearly expressed, yet it seems to be 
implied by the close connexion which binds the whole passage to- 
gether: ‘ Take,..the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, with 
all prayer and supplication praying always in the Spirit’. Prayer is 
indeed the utterance of the Spirit in us, crying Abba, Father, and 
making intercession for us according to the will of God. 

‘And watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication 
for all the saints’. If the military metaphor is not distinctly 
carried on by the word ‘ watching’, the injunction is at any rate 
peculiarly appropriate at this point. God’s warrior, fully armed, 
must be wakeful and alert, or all his preparation will be vain. 

‘And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, in the 
opening of my mouth to make known with boldness the mystery 
of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in bonds ; that therein 
I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak’. At this point the 
Apostle’s language again runs parallel with that which he uses 
in the Epistle to the Colossians. For there the exhortation to 
slaves and their masters is followed at once by the words: ‘ Perse- 
vere in prayer, watching therein with thanksgiving, praying withal 
for us also, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to 
speak the mystery of the Christ, for which also I am in bonds, 
that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak’. This parallel 
determines the meaning of the phrase ‘the opening of my mouth’. 
It is not, as our Authorised Version renders it, ‘that I may open 
my mouth’; but rather ‘that God may open my mouth’. He is 
the giver of the utterance. The Apostle is His spokesman, His 
ambassador, though, by a strange paradox, he wears a chain. 


**But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, 
Tychicus, the beloved brother and faithful minister in the 
Lord, shall make known unto you all things: whom I have 
sent unto you for the same purpose, that ye might know our 
affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts. 

23Peace be to the brethren, and love with eat from God 
the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 

24Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ 
in incorruptibility. 

The words which concern the mission of Tychicus are found also 
in the Epistle to the Colossians, with hardly a difference, except 


that there Onesimus is joined with him. Tychicus is mentioned 
in the Acts together with Trophimus as a native of proconsular 


\ 


VI 21—24] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 137 


Asia, who met St Paul at Troas on his return from Greece through 
Macedonia in the year 58 a.D. This was the memorable journey 
which issued in the Apostle’s arrest in the temple at Jerusalem 
and his imprisonment at Caesarea. It is probable that as a dele- 
gate of the Colossian Church he went, as Trophimus did on behalf Acts xxi29 
of the Ephesians, the whole of the way to Jerusalem. But at least 
we may think of him as present when the Apostle preached and 
broke bread at Troas, and when he addressed the Ephesian Elders 
at Miletus. This was five years before the date of the present 
epistle, which he carried from Rome to the several Asian Churches, 
Five years later we find him again with St Paul, who speaks of Tit. iii 12 
sending him or Artemas to visit Titus in Crete, and who actually 2 Tim. iv 
sent hon not long afterwards to Ephesus. So by acts of service 
extending over a period of ten years he justified his title of ‘the 
beloved brother’ and the Apostles’ ‘faithful minister’. 

‘Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the vi 23 
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’. In sharp contrast with the 
full list of salutations addressed to individuals in the Colossian 
Church stands this general greeting, which will serve alike for 
each of the Churches to which the letter is brought. 

‘Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in in- vi 24 
corruptibility’. St Paul invariably closes his epistles by invoking 
upon his readers the gift of that ‘grace’ which holds so prominent 
a place in all his thought. In one of his earliest epistles we read: 
‘The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is the 2 Thess. 
token in every epistle: thus I write: The grace of our Lord Jesus ™ "7 : 
Christ be with you all’, We may suppose then that after he had 
dictated the general salutation which took the place of individual 
greetings, he himself wrote with his own hand what he regarded 
as his sign-manual. This final salutation is still general in its 
terms, being couched in the third person contrary to his custom. 
The words have in part a familiar ring. Again and again in the 
Old Testament and the later Jewish writings mercy is promised Exod. xx 
to or invoked upon ‘them that love’ ous It comes naturally © ¢e- 
therefore to the Apostle to invoke ‘grace’ upon ‘all them that 
love our Lord Jesus Christ’. But to this he adds a new phrase, 
to which we have no parallel—‘in incorruptibility’. 

There is nothing in the immediate context which leads up to 
or helps to explain this phrase. The word ‘incorruptibility’ has 
not occurred in the epistle: but the Apostle uses it elsewhere 
in the following passages: ‘To them who by patient continuance Rom. ii 7 
in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality’; ‘It * vassal 


42, 50, 
is sown in corruption: it is raised in incorruption...for this cor- 5 en 


138 EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [VI 24 


2 Tim.ito ruptible must put on incorruption’, &c.; ‘Our Saviour Jesus Christ, 
who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and tmmortality 
to light through the Gospel’. It signifies that imperishableness 

Rom. i23; which is an attribute of God Himself, and which belongs to the 

pet unchanging order of the eternal world. Imperishableness is the 
characteristic of our new life in Christ and of our love to Him. 
That life and that love are in truth immortal; they belong to a 
region which is beyond the touch of decay and death. 

So the epistle which opened with a bold glance into the eternal 
past closes with the outlook of an immortal hope. 





UNIVERSITY ; 
OF y 





IPOS E®EXSIOY™> 


"Oorep Sit Tod cepatos 6 gwTnp €Addet Kal ia@ro, ovrws Kal mporepov 
pev dia Tav mpodynrarv, viv dSé dia tay aroorddoy kal taév SidacKdrov. 7 
exkAnoia ‘yap vmnpetet TH Tov Kupiov évepyeia. vOev Kal tote avOpwroy 
dvékaBev tva Se adrov vmnpetion tH Oehnpart tod matpds, Kal mdvrore 
avOpwrov 6 diravOpwros évdverat Oeds eis tiv avOp@mrav owTnpiay, mpdrepov 


4 ’ a“ bY A > / 
pev tous mpodyras, viv dé thy éxkAnoiar. 


Even as through the body the Saviour used to speak and heal, so afore- 
time through the prophets and now through the apostles and teachers. 
For the Church subserves the mighty working of the Lord. Whence both 
at that time He took upon Him man, that through him He might sub- 
serve the Father's will; and at all times in His love to man God clothes 
Himself with man for the salvation of men, aforetime with the prophets, 
now with the Church. 


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Eclog. Proph. 23. 





IPOs 


E®ESIOY™. 


ore dmoaTtoAos Xpixtov “Incot dia OeAnuaros 


Geot Tots ayiow Tots ovtow [év "Edéow] Kal 


mieTots €v Xpiotw “Inoov' 


2 Le toa \ 2 / > \ 
Xapis UJALV Kal elonvy aTrO 


on \ 4 > co a 
Qeot tatpos juav Kal Kupiov “Inco Xpixrov. 


I, 2. ‘Pavu, an apostle of Christ 
Jesus by the will of God, to the 
members of God’s consecrated Peo- 
ple who are [in Epuusvus, | faithful 
believers in Christ Jesus. I give 
you the new watchword with the old 
—Grace and peace be with you, from 
God our Father and from the Lord 
Jesus Christ’. 

I. trois ayios| For the transference 
of the technical description of the 
ancient People to the members of the 
Christian Church, see Lightfoot on 
Col. i 2 and Phil. i 1. 

év ’Edéo@] See the note on the 
various readings. The omission of 
the words leaves us with two possible 
interpretations: (1) ‘to the saints 
which Ares..... and the faithful in 
Christ Jesus’, a space being left, to 
be filled in each case by the name of the 
particular Church to which the letter 
was brought by Tychicus its bearer ; or 
(2) ‘to the saints which are also fatth- 
Sul in Christ Jesus’. The former 
interpretation is supported by the 
parallels in Rom. i 7 rots ovow ev ‘Popy, 
and Phil. iI rots odow év Birimros. A 
strong objection to the latter is the 
unusual stress which is thrown upon 
Kat muorois by the intervention of rots 
ovow unaccompanied by the mention 
of a locality. 

kai microis| The ‘saints’ are further 
defined as ‘faithful in Christ Jesus’, 


an epithet in which the two senses of 
miotis, ‘belief’ and ‘fidelity’, appear 
to be blended: see Lightfoot Gala- 


' ttans p. 157. 


2. xdpis vuiv Kai elpnvn| The Greek 
salutation was yaipew, which occurs 
in the letter of the Apostles and 
Elders to the Gentiles, Acts xv 23, in 
that of Claudias Lysias, Acts xxiii 26, 
and in the Epistle of St James. The 
oriental salutation was ‘Peace’: see 
Ezra iv 17 (‘Peace, and at such a 
time’), v 7, [vii 12], Dan. iv 1, vi 25; 
and contrast the Greek recensions 
1 Esdr. vi 7, viii 9, Esther xvi 1, where 
we have yaipev. 

The present combination occurs in 
all the Pauline epistles (except 1 and 
2 Tim, and Titus [?], where Zdeos 
intervenes: comp. 2 John 3). It is 
also found in Apoc. i 4, and with 
mAnOvvbein in 1 and 2 Peter. In Jude 
we have @Aecos, elpyvn and dyamn. 

Whether ydpis was in any way 
suggested by xaipe must remain 


_ doubtful: a parallel may possibly be 


found in the emphatic introduction 
of yapain 1 Johni4. What is plain is 
that St Paul prefixes to the character- 
istic blessing of the Old Dispensation 
(comp. Numb. vi 26) the characteristic 
blessing of the New. The combination 
is typical of his position as the Hebrew 
Apostle to the Gentiles, See further 
the detached note on yaprs. 


142 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[I 3,4 


> \ ¢ \ \ \ ‘an / € lo 
3EvAoyntos 6 Geos Kat watTnp TOU Kuplov nue 

> vas qn € > / e io 5) / ee f 
Inoov Xpirtov, 0 evAoynoas nuas ev mwaon evAoyia 
mvevpatixh év Tots éroupavios év XpioT@, *kabws é£e- 


3—10. ‘I begin by blessing God 
who has blessed us, not with an 
earthly blessing of the basket and the 
store, but with all spiritual blessing 
in the heavenly region in Christ. 
Such was the design of His eternal 
selection of us to walk before Him 
in holiness and love. From the first 
He marked us out to be made His 
sons by adoption through Jesus Christ. 
The good-pleasure of His will was the 
sole ground of this selection; as the 
praise of the glory of His grace was its 
contemplated end. His grace, I say; 
for He has showered grace on usin Him 
who is the Beloved, the Bringer of the 
great Emancipation, which is wrought 
by His death and which delivers us 
from sin: such is the wealth of His 
grace. The abundance of grace too 
brings wisdom and practical under- 
standing: for He has allowed us to 
know His secret, the hidden purpose 
which underlies all and interprets all. 
Long ago His good-pleasure was deter- 
mined: now, as the times are ripening, 
He is working out His plan. And the 
issue of all is this—the summing up, 
the focussing, the gathering into one, 
of the whole Universe, heavenly things 
and earthly things alike, in Christ’. 

3. Evdoynros| This word is used 
only of God in the New Testament. 
It recurs in the present phrase, 2 Cor. 
i 3, 1 Pet. i 3; and in the phrase 
evAoynros els rovs aldvas, Rom. i 25, 
ix 5, 2 Cor. xi 31. The only other 
instances are Mark xiv 61, Luke i 68. 
Of men, on the other hand, «doyy- 
pévos is used, e.g. Matt. xxv 34, Luke 
i 42. EvAoyyrds implies that blessing 
is due ; evAoynpévos, that blessing has 
been received. The blessing of man 
by God confers material or spiritual 
benefits : the blessing of God by man 
is a return of gratitude and praise, 


Here St Paul combines the two signifi- 
cations: EvAoynros...6 evAoynoas yas. 

6 Oeds kal rarnp| The first, as well 
as the second of these titles, is to be 
taken with the following genitive. A 
sufficient warrant for this is found in 
©. 17, 0 Geds Tod Kupiov nuay "Incod 
Xp.otod, 6 ratnp tis doéns (comp. also 
John xx17). Some early interpreters 
however take the genitive with marjp 
alone. Thus Theodore allows this 
latter construction, and Theodoret 
insists upon it. Moreover the Peshito 
renders: ‘Blessed be God, the Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ’; and the 
earlier Syriac version, as witnessed to 
by Ephraim’s commentary (extant only 
in an Armenian translation), seems to 
have had: ‘Blessed be our Father, 
the Father of our Lord’, ete. On 
the other hand B stands alone (for 
Hilary, in Ps. lavi, quotes only 
Benedictus deus, qui benedixit nos, 
etc.) in omitting cal rarnp. 

€v tmaon evAoyia mvevpatixn| ‘with 
all spiritual blessing’. It might be 
rendered ‘with every spiritual bless- 
ing’; but it is better to regard 
evroyia as abstract: compare v. 8 ev 
maon copia. 

év trois émovpaviots| The interpre- 
tation of this phrase, which occurs 
again in i 20, ii 6, ili Io, vi 12, and 
not elsewhere, is discussed at length 
in the exposition. The Latin rendering 
is ‘in caelestibus’. The Peshito has 
Wass (=v rots ovpavois) in all 
instances except the last. It is inte- 
resting to note that in i 20 B and a 
few other authorities read éy trois 
ovpavois. 

4. e&edéEaro] We may render this 
either ‘He hath chosen’ or ‘He chose’; 
and so with the aorists throughout 
the passage. In Greek the aorist is 
the natural tense to use; but it does 





I 5, 6] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


143 


rE € fn 5) > la A B xn / 4 Cc oa 
é£aTo nas évy avT@ mp0 KaTaBoANs KOT MOV, Eivat judas 
Car Nie / / 5) rls ? / 

@) 5 8 
drytous kat djscp.ous Karey mov avtov év dyarn, ™po 
opioas juas eis violeciav dia “Inoot Xpiorod eis avtov, 

\ \ / on / lo af 
Kata THv evookiav Tov OeAnuaTtos av’Tou, °eis Erravov 


not of necessity confine our attention 
to the moment of action. 

mpo KataBvAjs Kocpov| Here only 
in St Paul: but see John xvii 24, 
1 Pet. i 20. The phrase dé xara- 
BoAjjs koopov is several times used in 
the New Testament, but not by St 
Paul. 

ayiovs kat dudpous| These adjec- 
tives are again combined in v 27; and, 
with the addition of dvéyxAnros, in 
Col. i 22. In the Lxx Gyuwpos is 
almost exclusively found as a ren- 
dering of DN, which occurs very 
frequently of sacrificial animals, in 
the sense of ‘without blemish’. But 
DN is also freely used of moral 
rectitude, and has other renderings, 
such as réAewos, Gueumros, Kabapos, 
dkakos, dows. Accordingly a sacri- 
ficial metaphor is not necessarily 
implied in the use of the word in 
this place. 

ev dyarn| This has been interpreted 
(1) of God’s love, (2) of our love, 
whether (a) to God or (}) to each 
other. Origen adopts the first view ; 
he connects év dyamn with mpoopicas 
(‘in love having foreordained us’): 
but he allows as a possible alternative 
the connexion with éfeAé£aro. This 
alternative (He hath chosen us...in 
love) is the view taken by Ephraim and 
by Pelagius. The connexion with 
mpooptoas, however, is more usual: 
it is accepted by Theodore and 
Chrysostom: the Peshito precludes 
any other view by rendering ‘and in 
love He’ &c.; but Ephraim’s comment 
shews that the conjunction cannot 
have been present in the Old Syriac 
version, 

In Latin the rendering ‘in cariiate 
praedestinans’ (dog) left the question 
open. Victorinus has this rendering, 


but offers no interpretation of ‘in 
caritate’: Ambrosiaster has it, and 
explains the words of our love to God 
which produces holiness : Jerome also 
has it, and gives as alternatives the 
connexion with what immediately 
precedes, and Origen’s view which 
connects the words with mpoopicas. 
The Vulgate rendering (found also in 
J) ‘in caritate qui praedestinauit’ 
precludes the connexion with mpo- 
opioas. 

The simplest interpretation is that 
which is indicated by the punctuation 
given in the text. It is supported by 
the rhythm of the sentence, and also 
by the frequent recurrence in this 
epistle (iii 17, iv 2, 15, 16, v 2) of the 
phrase ¢v dydmy in reference to the 
love which Christians should have one 
to another. 

5. els viodeciav] St Paul uses the 
word vioGecia five times; Rom. viii 
15, 23, ix 4, Gal. iv 5, and here, It is 
found in no other Biblical writer. 
Although the word does not seem to 
occur in the earlier literary Greek, it 
is frequent in inscriptions. In addi- 
tion to the ordinary references, see 
Deissmann Neue Bibelstudien (1897) 
p- 66. He cites from pre-Christian 
inscriptions the formulae xa@ viobeviav 
dé and xara 6vyarporo:iay dé, occurring 
in contrast to cara yéveow. 

In Rom. ix 4 St Paul uses the term 
in enumerating the privileges of the 
ancient Israel, dv 7 viobecia kat 7 Sdéa 
kat ai OuaOjxa x.r.A. Here therefore 
it falls into line with the other expres- 
sions which he transfers to the New 
People: such as dy, drodvrpwots, 
exAnpoOnper, emayyedia, Tepiroinats. 

evdoxiav Tod GeAjparos| Comp. v. 9; 
and for the emphatic reiteration comp. 
®. II Kata THY Bovdny Tov OeAnparos 


144 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 





[I 7—10 


/ lanl ad lo e / ~ oi 
doEns THS XaplTOS aUTOV, NS ExaplTwoEV Huas Ev TH 
e > \ rd \ 4 

nyarnueva, 7év w Exouev THY aroNvTpwoWw Sia TOU 


/ ~ \ of ~ / \ 
aimaToOS avTOU, THY afer TWY TapaTTwWUAaTwWY, KaTa 


\ lo lo / co ‘.; , > 
TO WAOUTOS THS YaptTOS avToOV, Sis ETEPLOTEVTEV EIS 


CoA > , / \ / 9 Vi ata \ 

nas ev Tacn codia Kat ppovnoe apices Uy ae 
a / > ~ > 

puctnpiov Tov OeAnpuatos a’Tov, KaTa Tv evooKiay 


> a a / > > ~10.? > / qn / 
QUTOU HV mpoe0eTo EV auTW Els OLKOVOMLQAV TOU mAnpw- 


avrod. Fritzsche (on Rom. x 1) dis- 
cusses evdoxeiv and evdoxia. . He shews 
that the verb is freely used by the 
later Greek writers, and especially 
Polybius, where earlier writers would 
have said ¢dofev and the like. The 
noun appears to be Alexandrian. The 
translators of the Greek Psalter, who 
uniformly employ evdoxeivy for 3”, 
render }18" by evdoxia'(7 times) and 
by 6éAnua (6 times). Apart from this 
evdoxia is found twice only, except in 
Ecclesiasticus where it occurs 16 
times. In Enoch i 8 we have kai ry 
evdoxiay Seoer avrois Kat mavtas evdo- 
ynoe. Like Ji85, it is used largely 
of the Divine ‘good-pleasure’ (comp. 
Ps. ecxlix 4 dre evdoxet Kupuos év 
Aa@ avrod), but also of the ‘good- 
pleasure’, satisfaction or happiness of 
men. 

6. is éxapirwoev jpas| The Apostle 
is emphasising his own word ydpis. It 
is instructive to compare certain other 
phrases in which a substantive is 
followed by its cognate verb: as in 
v. 19 Kara Thy évépyetav...v évipynkev, 
ii 4 dca thy wodAnv ayarny avrov hy 
nyarnoey Huds, iV I THs KANoEws Hs 
éxAnOnre. The meaning is ‘ His grace 
wherewith He hath endued us with 
grace’; which is a more emphatic way 
of saying ‘ His grace which He hath 
shewn toward us’ or ‘hath bestowed 
upon us’. So that the phrase does 
not greatly differ from that of v. 8 
‘His grace which He hath made to 
abound toward us’. For other uses 
of xapirotv, and for the early inter- 


pretations of the word in this place, 
see the detached note on ydpis. 

The relative 7s has been attracted 
into the case of its antecedent. It is 
simplest to regard it as standing for 
7- S°D,G,KL, with the Latin version 
(in gua), read év7: but thisis probably 
the grammatical change of a scribe. 

év TS nyarnuevm| The reasons for 
regarding o yyamnuévos as a current 
Messianic designation are given in a 
detached note. In the parallel passage, 
Col. i 13f, St Paul writes: cai peré- 
aotnoev eis THY Baoielay Tod viod Tis 
dyanns adrod, év & exouev wtA. In 
that passage the desire to emphasise 
the Divine Sonship of Christ may 
account for his paraphrase of the 
title. 

7- & & éxouev ty drodvTpocw | 
Soin Col.i14. For the meaning of 
dmovtpwors see note on v. 14. 

8. is émepiooevcev] Probably by 
attraction for nv émepiocevoev: comp. 
2 Cor. ix 8 duvaret 5é€ 6 beds macay 
xapw mwepiccevoa eis vpas. 

9. TO pvotypiov] Comp. iii 3, 4, 9, 
V 32, vi 19: and see the detached 
note on pvornptov. 

mpoéGero] ‘He hath purposed’. 
The preposition in this word has the 
signification not of time, but of place: 
‘He set before Himself’. Sowe have 
mpoGears, ‘purpose’, in v. II. 

10. eis oikovouiay|] The word oiko- 
vouia means primarily either ‘the office 
of a steward’ or ‘household manage- 
ment’. The latter meaning however 


received a large extension, so that 





I ro] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


145 


os a / A ~ 

MaTOS TWY KalpwY, avaceparawoacbat Ta TavTa év Tw 
co \ > \ qn > ~ \ A > 4 onl “A > 

XPiTTW, Ta €7Ht TOU ovpavols KQt Ta €7 1 THS yf a €y 


oikovopety and oixovouia were used in 
the most general sense of provision 
or arrangement. This wider use of 
the words may be illustrated from 
Polybius. The verb occurs in Polyb. 
iv 26 6 vmep tév SAwy oikovopew (the 
Aetolians refuse to ‘make arrange- 
ments’ with Philip previous to a 
general assembly); and in iv 67 9 
tavra O€ oixovoynoas (of appointing a 
rendezvous), ‘when he had made these 
dispositions’ (comp. 2 Mace. iii 14, 3 
Mace. iii 2). The noun is exceedingly 
common: e.g. Polyb.i 4 3 rv dé kadXov 
kal ovAAnBSn»y oikovopiay TSY yeyovorar, 
where he is pleading for a broad 
historical view of the general course 
of events; ii 47 10 ravrnv émxpv- 
Weorba thy vixovopiay, ‘to conceal this 
his actual policy’ or ‘line of action’; 
V 40 3 raxeiay éAdpBave TO mpaypa 
Tv oikovouiav, ‘the project quickly 
began to work itself out’; vi 9 I0 
(in closing a discussion of the way 
in which one form of polity succeeds 
to another) avry modiredy dvaxikraors, 
aitn hicews oikovopia, K.T.A.5 i.€., 680 
forms of government recur in a cycle, 
so things naturally work themselves 
out’. 

Both here and in iii 9, ris 7 olko- 
vouia Tov pvotnpiov k.T.A., the word is 
used of the manner in which the 
purpose of God is being worked out 
in human history. At a later time 
oikovonia acquired a more concrete 
meaning; so that, for example, the 
Christian ‘dispensation’ came to be 
contrasted with the Mosaic ‘dispen- 
sation’. As the rendering ‘for the 
(or a) dispensation of the fulness of 
the times’ is not free from ambiguity, 
it is preferable to render ‘for dispen- 
sation in the fulness of the times’. 
In any case wAnpsparos is a genitive 
of further definition. Compare with 
the whole phrase Mark i 15 semd7- 
porat 6 kaos, and 1 Tim. ii 6 rd 
Baptvp.oy karpois idiots. 


dvaxehaawcar6a] The verb is 
derived not directly from xe@adm, ‘a 
head’, but from xepddaiov, ‘a, sum- 
mary’ or ‘sum total’ (comp. Heb. viii 
1). Accordingly it means ‘to sum 
up’ or ‘present as a whole’; as in 
Rom. xiii 9, where after naming 
various precepts St Paul declares that 
they are ‘summed up in this word, 
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy- 
self? (Cv rotr@rd Ady dvaxehadaiovrat). 
The Peshito has «on “pamlan 
havds xsta, ‘ut cuncta denuo 


nouarentur’ ; and Ephraim’s Commen- 
tary shews that this was the Old 
Syriac rendering. Similarly the Latin 
version has ‘instaurare’ or ‘restau- 
rare’, though Tertullian and the 
translator of Irenaeus seek to re- 
produce the Greek word more closely 
by ‘recapitulare’, In both Syriac 
and Latin versions the preposition 
ava has been interpreted of repetition. 
But its meaning here is rather that 
which we find in such compounds as 
avahoyifer Oat, dvapiOpeiv, dvackoreiy : 
so that in usage the word does not 
seriously differ from ovyxeadatodr, 
the slight shade of distinction being 
that between ‘to gather up’ (with the 
stress on the elements to be united) 
and ‘to gather together’ (with the 
stress on their ultimate union). See 
Lightfoot ad loc. (Notes on Epistles 
of St Paul) and on Col. i 16, 

11—14. ‘In Christ, I repeat, in 
whom we have been chosen as the 
Portion of God: for long ago He set 
His choice upon us, in accordance 
with a purpose linked with almighty 
power and issuing in the fulfilment of 
His sovereign will. We have thus 
been chosen to be to the praise of the 
glory of God—we Jews; for we have 
been the first to hope in Christ. But 
yet not we alone. You too, you Gen- 
tiles, have heard the message of truth, 
the good news of a salvation which is 


146 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[I 11—13 


IT@, “ev w Kal exAnowOnuev mooopic OevTeE a po 
avT@, “ev @ Kal écAnpwOnpev mpoopirUerTes KaTa mpO- 
lad \ / ~ A ~ 
Gerw Tov Ta TwavTa évepyouvTos Kata THyv BovAny Tod 
/ lm \ S ~ > A , 
GeAnuatos avTov, “eis TO Eivat Huds els Erawov So€ns 
~ \ / o ~*~ e \ 
avTovU Tous mponATiKOTas é€v TH xpioTe “Bév w Kal 
~ / ‘ / o ¥ \ 
UMEls akoUcavTes TOY AOyov THs dAnOEias, TO Evay- 


yours as much as ours. You too have 
believed in Christ, and have been 
sealed with the Spirit, the Holy 
Spirit promised to the holy People, 
who is at once the pledge and the 
first instalment of our common heri- 
tage; sealed, I say, for the full and 
final emancipation, that you, no less 
than we, may contribute to the praise 
of the glory of God’, 

II, €v @ kal éxAnpoOnyev mpoopic- 
6évres] This is practically a restate- 
ment in the passive voice of é£eA¢Earo 
npas--.mpoopiaas nas (vv. 4, 5). So 
Chrysostom comments: Geis yap 6 
éxheEduevos Kal KAnpwodpuevos. KAn- 
pouv is ‘to choose by lot’ or ‘to 
appoint by lot’. In the passive it is 
‘to be chosen (or ‘appointed’) by 
lot’. But the image of the lot tends 
to disappear; so that the word means 
‘to assign’, or (mid.) ‘to assign to 
oneself’, ‘to choose’; and in the 
passive ‘to be assigned’ or ‘chosen’, 
The passive, however, could be used 
with a following accusative in the 
sense of ‘to be assigned a thing’, and 
so ‘to acquire as a portion’. Thus in 
the Berlin Papyri (1 405) we read, 
in a contract of the year 348 a.D.: 
emion Aidov ouroxomrny Kal ouradeTiKny 
EnxXavny, Tatp@a nuay ovta, €kAnpa- 
Onpev, xrA. This is the meaning 
given in the present passage by the 
A.V. (‘in whom also we have obtained 
an inheritance’): but there appears to 
be no justification for it, except when 
the accusative of the object assigned 
is expressed. 

Accordingly the meaning must be 
‘we have been chosen as God’s por- 
tion’: and the word is perhaps se- 
lected because Israel was called ‘the 


lot’ or ‘the portion’ of God: as, eg., 
in Deut. ix 29 otroe Aads cov Kat 
kAnpds cov (comp. Esth. iv 17, an 
addition in the Lxx). The rendering 
of the R.V., ‘we were made a heri- 
tage’, is more correct than that of the 
A.V., but it introduces the idea of 
inheritance (kAnpovopia), which is not 
necessarily implied by the word. We 
might perhaps be content to render 
e&edéEaro (v. 5) and éexAnpdOnuev by 
‘chose’ and ‘chosen’, as was done in 
the Geneva Bible of 1557: an ancient 
precedent for this is found in the 
Peshito, which employs the same 
verb in both verses— ~=\X_ and 


Ta mavta évepyouvros] ‘who worketh 
all things’: see the detached note on 
evepyely. 

I2. Tovs mpondmoras] ‘who have 
been the first to hope’. For this use 
of mpé in composition (‘before an- 
other’) compare I Cor. xi 21 ékacros 
yap 76 idioy Seimvov mpodapBaver ev TS 
gayeiv. So far as the word in itself 
is concerned it might be rendered 
‘who aforetime hoped’: but the 
meaning thus given is questionable: 
see the exposition. 

13. é€y @ kat vpeis] It is simplest 
to take vyeis as the nominative to 
éodppayicOnre, regarding the second 
év 6 as picking up the sentence, which 
has been broken to insert the em- 
phatic phrase ‘the good tidings of a 
salvation which was yours as well as 
ours’. A somewhat similar repetition 
is found in ii 11, 12 dre woré tyels... 
OTL ATE K.T.A. 

Tov Néyor Tis GAnOeias] The teach- — 
ing which told you the ‘ruth of things \ 





I 14] 


/ a a 
yeXlov THS TwTnpias Vuwv, eV 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


147 


\ 


, 
K@t WlOTEVOAVTES 


“84 


> / on) A ~ ? ? an ee 

eoppayisOnre 72 TVEUMATL THS ETAaYYENLAS THO ayiw, 
e > > ~ , ~ 

40 éotw appaBwv THs KAnpoVvopias Huwy, Eis amoAU- 


- / 
TPWOW THS TWEPLTOINTEWS, ELS 


of ~ 7 3 ~ 
ETALVOV THS doEns aUTOU. 


14. 6s éorw 


(comp. iv 21), to wit, that yow were 
included in the Divine purpose—the 
good tidings of your salvation. In 
Col. i 5 we have the same thought: 
‘the hope laid up for yow in the 
heavens, whereof ye heard aforetime 
in the word of the truth of the gospel 
which came unto you’, &c. Compare 
also 2 Cor. vi 7 év Ady adnOeias and 
James i 18 Ady@ aAnGeias. 

exppayicOnre k.r.d.] Compare iv 30 
TO mvedpa TO Gyov tod Oeov, ev @ 
éeodpayicbnre eis yuépav drodutpacews, 
and 2 Cor. i 21 f. (quoted below). 

14. dappaBoéyv]| Lightfoot has treated 
this word fully in the last of his notes 
on this epistle (Votes on Epp. p. 323). 
It is the Hebrew word ji2.7Y (from 
1, ‘to entwine’, and so ‘to pledge’). 
It is found in classical Greek writers ; 
so that it was probably brought to 
Greece by the Phoenician traders, 
and not by the Hebrews, who knew 
little of the Greeks in early days. It 
came also into Latin, and is found in 
a clipped form in the law books as 
arra. In usage it means strictly not 
‘a pledge’ (évéyupov), but ‘an earnest’ 
(though in the only place in the Lxx 
where it occurs, Gen. xxxviii 17 ff, it 
has the former sense). That is to say, 
it is a part given in advance as a 
security that the whole will be paid 
hereafter—a first instalment. 

Jerome ad loc. points out that the 
Latin version had pignus in this 
place instead of arrabo. Yet in his 
Vulgate he left pignus here and in 
2 Cor. i 22, v 5. The explanation 
probably is that in his Commentary 
he was practically translating from 
Origen, and found a careful note on 
appaBov, which would have been 


meaningless as a note on pignus: 
thus his attention was drawn to the 
inadequacy of the Latin version: but 
nevertheless in revising that version 
(if indeed to any serious extent he did 
revise it in the Epistles) he forgot, or 
did not care, to insist on the proper 
distinction. 

With the whole context compare 
2 Cor. i 21f. 6 d€ BeBardy pas otv 
vpiv eis Xpiorov Kal xpiocas nuas Geds, 
6 kal odhpaytoduevos juas Kat Sods Tov 
dppaBava rod mvetparos év tais Kap- 
diais nuoyv (for the technical term 
BeBaovy, see Deissmann Bibelstudien 
pp. 10off. and Gradenwitz Hinfihr- 
ung in die Papyruskunde, 1900, p. 59). 

Gradenwitz (zbid. pp. 81 ff.) shews 
that the dppaBev, as it appears in the 
papyri, was a large proportion of the 
payment: if the transaction was not 
completed the defaulter, if the seller, 
repaid the dppaBwv twofold with in- 
terest; if the buyer, he lost the 
dppaBov. 

nav] Note the return to the first 
person. It is ‘owr inheritance’: we 
and you are ovvkAnpovduot, comp. 
iii 6. 

eis droAvrpwow] The verb Avurpod- 
oGa is used of the redemption of Israel 
from Egypt in Exod. vi 6, xv 13 (284), 
and six times in Deuteronomy (i775). 
In the Psalms it represents both 
Hebrew words; in Isaiah generally 
the first of them: and it is frequently 
found in other parts of the Old Tes- 
tament. The Redemption from Egypt 
is the ground of the conception 
throughout; and ‘emancipation’ is 
perhaps the word which expresses the 
meaning most clearly. In English 
the word ‘redemption’ almost inevit- 


l0-——2 


148 


ably suggests a price paid: but there 
is no such necessary suggestion where 
Avtpovaba is used of the People, 
even if occasionally the primary sense 
is felt and played upon. In dmodv- 
tpwcis (and even Aivtpwois in the 
New Testament) the idea of emanci- 
pation is dominant, and that of pay- 
ment seems wholly to have disap- 
peared. In the Old Testament the 
form dmod’rpwots is only found in 
Dan. iv 30° (Lxx), of Nebuchadnezzar’s 
recovery (6 xpdvos tis dmodutpdceds 
pov). See further Westcott Hebrews 
pp. 295 ff, and T. K. Abbott Lphe- 
stans pp. 11 ff. 

Ths mepirroinoews| The verb repurot- 
eic6a is found in two senses in the 
Old Testament: (1) ‘to preserve alive’ 
(nearly always for i1%), (2) ‘to ac- 
quire’, Corresponding to the former 
sense we have the noun zepiroinots, 
‘preservation of life’ (F'ND), in 2 
Chron. xiv 13 (12); corresponding to 
the latter we have Mal. iii 37 evovrat 
pot,...el¢ nu€pay nv eyo trou, eis mept- 


moijow (Mey sos see od,95 ym 


mip), ‘they shall be to Me,...in the 
day that I do make, a peculiar trea- 
sure’; these are the only places (exc. 
Hag. ii 9, Lxx only) where the noun is 
used. 

In the New Testament the verb is 
found, probably in the sense of ‘ pre- 
serving alive’, in Luke xvii 33 (epu- 
nronocacda, BL; but NA etc. have 
coca, and D woyorvnca), where in 
the second member of the verse we 
have (woyorvnoe. In the sense of 
‘acquiring’ it is found in Acts xx 28 
(qv mepteromujcaro Sid Tod aiparos Tov 
idiov) and in 1 Tim. iii 13 (Badudy 
xadov). The noun is found in Heb. 
X 39 els mepuroinow auxfs, I Thess, 
V 9 els mepuroinow cwrnpias, ai 
2 Thess. ii 14 eis wepuroinow Sogys : i 
each of these places the meaning is 
debated; see Lightfoot on the two 
last (Notes on Epp. pp. 76, 121). 

The passage in Malachi is specially 
important for the determination of 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[I. 14 


the meaning in this place. With the 
Hebrew we may compare Exod. xix 5 


ndip *S nnn, which the uxx ren- 
dered goeoOé pot Aads mepiovcios, in- 
serting Aads from a recollection of 
Deut. vii 6, xiv 2, xxvi 18. The peri- 
phrasis ggovrai pou eis repuroinaw is 
Hebraistic; comp. Jer. xxxviii (xxxi) 
33 €oorrai pot eis Aadv: although in 


Malachi we have mbip, not mo3pd (as 
in Ps. exxxv 43 els mepiovovacpoy 
uxx). _In i Pet. iig we have Aads eis 
meptroinow, Where the passage in 
Exodus is chiefly in mind: and where 
it would seem that Aads is a reminis- 
cence of the Lxx of Exodus, and «is 
mepuroinow of the Lxx of Malachi: 
both passages were doubtless very 
familiar. The view that mepuroinots 
had a recognised meaning in con- 
nexion with Israel seems to be con- 
firmed by Isa. xliii 21 ‘This people 
have I formed for Myself’, which the 
LXx rendered Aady pov ov mepieroinad- 
pny: comp. Acts xx 28 (quoted above). 

Accordingly we may render the 
whole phrase ‘unto the redemption 
of God’s own possession’, understand- 
ing by this ‘the emancipation of God’s 
peculiar people’. The metaphor from 
a mercantile transaction has by this 
time been wholly dropped, and the 
Apostle has returned to the phrase- 
ology of the Old Testament. 

The Old Latin rendering is ‘in 
redemptionem adoptionis’; that of 
the Vulgate ‘in redemptionem ac- 
quisitionis’, In 1 Pet. ii 9 both 
forms of the version have ‘ populus 
acquisitionis’, though Augustine and 
Ambrose have ‘in adoptionem’, and 
Hilary ‘ad possidendum’. The Pe- 
shito renders ‘unto the redemption 
of the saved?’ (lit. ‘of them that live’); 
but Ephraim’s commentary makes it 
doubtful whether ‘the redemption of 
your possession’ was not the render- 
ing of the Old Syriac. Origen and 
Theodore seem to have understood 
mepiroinots in the sense of God’s 
claiming us as Hisown. The former 


\ 


1352-38) EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 149 


5A \ ~ > / p) / \ eae SRT a. l 
la TOUTO Kadyw, dKova~as Thy Kal vuas TioTLW 
cand / ~ \ \ / f 
é€v T@ Kuplw “Inoov Kal THY ayarny Els TaVTas TOUS 
/ / ~ A 4 
dyious, ov mavoua evyapisTév Umrép UuwV, vEelav Tol 
/ \ ~ ~ / \ lon 
oupevos él TwY TeOTEVXwV Mov, “iva 6 Beds TOU KUpioU 
e ~~ o~ _ \ ~~ / lf ~ 
nov Incot Xpwrrov, 0 matTnp Tis d0Ens, dwn Ul 
~ / \ / ts val 
TvEeva Godias Kal arokaduvews év Erriyvwoe avTod, 
18 r one \ a Sf Con > 
TepwTicpevous Tous oPUaAyous THs Kapdlas UUwY Els 


I5. OM dydirnv 


(Cramer Catena p. 121) paraphrases, 
iva drodutpwbdar kal mepurombacr TO 
6eS: the latter (bid. p. 122), ryv mpos 
avrov oixeiwow AapBdaver. This is no 
doubt a possible alternative, and it is 
probably the meaning of the Old Latin 
rendering. 

15—19. ‘With all this in mind, the 
tidings of your faith which believes 
in the Lord Jesus, and your charity 
which loves all who share with you 
the privilege of God’s consecrating 
choice, cannot but stir me to per- 
petual thanksgiving on your behalf. 
And in my prayers I ask that the 
God of our Lord Jesus Christ, His 
Father and ours in the heavenly glory, 
may give you His promised gift, the 
Spirit of wisdom, who is also the 
Spirit of revelation, the Unveiler of 
the Mystery. I pray that your heart’s 
eyes may be filled with His light, 
that you may know God with a three- 
fold knowledge—that you may know 
what a hope His calling brings; that 
you may know what a wealth of 
glory is laid up in His inheritance 
in His consecrated People; that you 
may know what an immensity charac- 
terises His power, which goes forth 
to us who believe’. 

15. thy kad vuas wiorw] <A peri- 
phrasis for the more ordinary phrase 
THY wiotw vpoev: see in the note on 
various readings, where the reading 
ayarmny is discussed. 

év TO kupio Incod| A stricter con- 
struction would require the repetition 


of tiv before this phrase. But comp. 


Col. i 4 riv wiotw tpdv ev Xpioro 
"Inood. The same loose construction 
occurs immediately afterwards with 
tiv ayarnv. Other examples in this 
epistle are ii 11 ra ¢6vn év capki, iv 1 
6 déopuos ev kupio: comp. also Phil. i 
5 émt ty Kowwvia vpav els Td evayye- 
Acov, Col. i 8 ryv vay dyamny év rvev- 
part. 

16, jpvelav rrotovpevos| The omis- 
sion of duov after this phrase, when 
mept vpov has immediately preceded, 
has an exact parallel in 1 Thess. i 2 ev- 
Xaptorovpey...mept mavrav tuav, pveiav 
movovpevor k.r.A. The meaning is not 
‘remembering’ (which would be pvy- 
povevovres, comp. I Thess. i 3), but 
‘making remembrance’ or ‘mention’, 
and so ‘interceding’. See the de- 
tached note on current epistolary 
phrases. 

17. 0 Ocds kr.A.] These titles are a 
variation upon the titles of the dox- 
ology in v. 3 6 Oeds Kal rarnp Tod Kupiov 
jpav Inoov Xpicrod. The fatherhood 
is widened and emphasised, as it is 
again when the prayer is recurred to 
and expanded in iii 14. 

dmokadvWeos| "Amoxddvyis is the 
correlative of pvornpiov: compare iii 
3) 5- 

év éervyvace: avtod| ‘in the know- 
ledge of Him’; not ‘full’ or ‘advanced 
knowledge’: see the detached note on 
the meaning of ériyvwors. 

18. mehwricpevors tos d6pOarpovs 
rhs xapdias tpav] literally ‘being en- 
lightened as to the eyes of your heart’. 
The construction is irregular; for after 


150 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [I 19—~21 


\ V7 ¢ vos / 5) e 5) \ ot / > nm 
TO €l0evat vuas TIS EoTiv yn EATES THS KANTEWS aVTOV, 
/ e lon and / n / ~ ~ 
TiS O WHNOUTOS THS do€ns THS KAnpovoplas avTOU ev Tots 
ely 19 \ / ‘ -# / / 6 - 5 / 
aytow, Kat Ti TO UmEepBadAov peEeyebos THs OuvVauEws 
QUTOU ELS uas TOUS TLOTEVOVYTAS, KaTa THY evepryetay 
~~ 7 ~ > VA ’ a ed / ’ “ 
TOU KpaTous THS loyVOS avTOV, “HY évnpynKEey ev TW 
Pon \ > “~ \ rs a 
XpirT@ éyelpas avTov ék vexpwv, Kal Kabioas év deElE 
~ > ~~ / / ‘3 oo sf 
avTovu év Tols €7roupaviols *“UTEpavW TaTNs apyns Kal 


20. évipyncer- 


vpiv we should have expected medo- 
tiopevors: but the sense is plain, 

There is an allusion to this passage 
in Clem. Rom. 36, 514 rovrov (sc. "Incod 
Xpiorov) nvedyOnoav par of opOarpot 
ths Kapdias: dua TrovTov 7 aavveros Kal 
ecxorwpévn Sidvora juav dvabadr« els 
To pas: the former of these sentences 
confirms the reading xapdias in this 
place; the latter recalls at once Rom. i 
21 and Eph. iv 18. 

19—23. ‘The measure of the might 
of His strength you may see first of 
all in what He has wrought in Christ 
Himself. He has raised Him from 
the dead; He has seated Him at His 
own right hand in the heavenly region ; 
He has made Him supreme above 
all conceivable rivals,—principalities, 
authorities, powers, lordships, be they 
what they may, in this world or the 
next, And, thus supreme, He has 
made Him the Head of a Body—the 
Church, which thus supplements and 
completes Him; that so the Christ 
may have no part lacking, but may 
be wholly completed and fulfilled’. 

19. Td vmepBadrov péyebos| The 
participle comes again in ii 7 rd vzrep- 
Baddov modros, and in iii 19 rH drep- 
Baddovoar ris yvdoews ayarnv. Other- 
wise it is only found in 2 Cor. iii 10 
(with d0&a), ix 14 (with yapis). We 
have the adverb dmrepBaddAdvras in 
2 Cor. xi 23. The noun vzepBor7 oc- 
curs seven times in St Paul’s epistles, 
but not elsewhere in the New Testa- 
ment. 

evépyecay...qv evipynxev] ‘the work- 


ing...which He hath wrought’: see 
detached note on évepyeiy and its cog- 
nates. 

Tov Kparovs Tis iaxvos avrov] The 
same combination is found in vi 10 
evduvapovae ev kupi@ Kal €v T@ Kparet 
tis loxvos adtod. Comp. also Col. i 11 
ev tracy Svvayer Suvapovpevoe Kata TO 
Kparos ths 8d6éns avrod. With perhaps 
but one exception (Heb. ii 14) the 
word kparos in the New Testament is 
only used of the Divine might. 

20, é€v Tois émovpaviois| On this ex- 
pression see the note on 2. 3. 

21. wvmepave] ‘above’. The only 
other places in the New Testament 
in which the word occurs are iv 10 6 
avaBas vmepdve Tavrav Taév ovpavar, 
and Heb. ix 5 dmrepavw dé avrijs (sc. ris 
KiBwrov) XepovBely dons. The latter 
passage shews that the duplicated 
form is not intensive; as neither is 
its counterpart vmoxarw (compare 
Heb. ii 8= Ps. viii 7 dmoxarw réyv ro- 
dav adrod with v. 22 of this chapter). 

We have a striking parallel to the 
language of this passage in Philo de 
somn. 125 (M. p. 644): "Eunvve dé ro 
ovap (Gen. xxviii 13) éornpeypévov eri 
Ths KAipaxos Tov apxayyedov Kupuov. 
Umepava yap ws Gpparos nvioxov i ws 
vedas KuBepyytnv varoAnmréov torac bat 
TO ov émt copatav, emi Wuydy,...é7 
aépos, én’ ovpavov, én’ aicOnray duvd- 
peor, em doparav diceav, dcarep 
Geard kat dOéara, Tov yap Kdcpov 
dmavra é&avas éavtod Kal avaptncas 
THY ToTavTnY nuoxel uct. 


maons apxyis x.t.A.] ‘every princi- \ 


| 





Res 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


151 


/ \ / \ / 
é£Foucias Kal Ouvayews Kal KUpLOTNTOS Kal TavTOs bVvO- 
ld 3 / ~ ~ 3 
MaTos dvouaCouevou ov Movoy ev TH aiwy. TOUTH dra 
\ va / \ , G ey \ 4 
Kat €y Tw peAovTe KaL TIANTA YTIETAZEN YTIO TOYC TIOAAC 


pality’, &c. The corresponding list 
in Col. i 16, where the words are in 
the plural (eire Opovor etre Kupsornres 
etre dpxal etre efovcia), shews that 
these are concrete terms. Otherwise 
we might render ‘all rule’ &. We 
have the plurals dpyai and ¢fovciat 
below in iii 10 and vi 12. On these 
terms see Lightfoot Colossians, loc. 
cit. Although the Apostle in writing 
to the Colossians treats them with 
something like scorn, yet his refer- 
ences to them in this epistle shew 
that he regarded them as actually 
existent and intelligent forces, if in 
part at any rate opposed to the Divine 
will, In the present passage, how- 
ever, they are mentioned only to em- 
phasise the exaltation of Christ. 

mavros ovoparos dvonatopevov| For 
dvoza in the sense of a ‘title of rank’ 
or ‘dignity’, see Lightfoot on Phil. ii 
9: and compare I Clem. 43, ré evddé@ 
Gvopate (SC. THs fepwovvns) Kekoopn- 
pévn, and 44, of amdcrodo juey eyvo- 
cay...0Tt epis €orar emt Tov syduatos 
tis emcoxonns. Among the Oxyrhyn- 
chus Papyri (Grenfell and Hunt, 
pt I no. 58) is a complaint (A.D. 288) 
of the needless multiplication of of- 
ficials: aroAXol BovAdpevor Tas Taytakas 
ovolas KatecOlew ovopata éavtois é&eu- 
povres, of pev xeuptoray, of dé ypaupa- 
réwv, of d€ hpovtictay, x.7.d., Closing 
with the order: ra d€ Aouad ovopara 
qavonrat. 

ێv 76 aid x7.A.] The same con- 
trast is found in Matt. xii 32 ovre év 
ToUT@® TH alave ovre €v TH peddovti. 
It is the familiar Rabbinic contrast 
between 10 diy, the present age, 
and S3n ndwy, the age to come. Dal- 
man, who fully discusses these terms 
(Die Worte Jesu 1 120 ff.), declares 
that there is no trace of them in pre- 
Christian Jewish literature. 


In the New Testament mtn Ddiy is 
represented by 6 aidy otros again in 
Luke xvi 8, xx 34, Rom. xii 2, 1 Cor. 
i 20, ii 6, 8, iii 18, 2 Cor. iv 4; by 6 
aioy 6 éveoros in Gal. i 43 by 6 viv 
aidv in the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Tim. 
Vi 17,2 ‘Tint. iv 10, ‘Tit. ti ¥2% and 
also by 6 kéapos ovros in 1 Cor. iii 19, 
Vv 10, Vii 31, and in the Johannine 
writings, in which ai@v only occurs in 
the phrases eis roy aldva, éx Tov aidvos 
(or in the plural, as in Apoc.). In 
the same sense we often have o aiay 


oY 6 Kocpos, just as ndiy is used for 


mnody, We may compare also o 
katpos ovros, Mark x 30 (= Luke xviii 
30), Luke xii 56; 6 viv caipos, Rom. 
iii 26, viii 18, xi 5; and 6 xaipos 6 eve- 
otnkos, Heb. ix 9. 

On the other hand the words xo- 
opos and Kxaipds cannot enter into the 


representation of NIN poy. For this 
we have 6 aidy 6 peAAwy again in Heb. 
vi 5 (Suvauers re éAdAovTos aidvos); 6 
aidv 6 épxopevos in Mark x 30 and the 
parallel Luke xviii 30; 6 aidv éxeivos in 
Luke xx 35. We may note however 
THY olkoupEerny THY péAAovaeay in Heb. 
li 5. 
We have below in this epistle the 
remarkable phrases 6 aidy rod Kocpov 
rovrov in li 2, and of aidves of émepyxo- 
pevoe in ii 7. 

22. kat maévra xrA.] An allusion 
to Ps. viii 7 mavra dmera€as vroKkata 
Tov modev avrov, Which is quoted so 
from the Lxx in Heb. ii 8. A similar 
allusion is made in 1 Cor. xv 27 ravra 
yap tréragey dd rovs modas avrod. 
With the whole context compare 
1 Pet. iii 22 ds eorw év Sefta Geod 
mopevbels els ovpavdy trorayévtay avrg 
dyyétov Kal é€ovordy kal Suvdpyear, 


which is plainly dependent on this 
passage. 


152 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[I 23—II x 


> an \ Mv \ \ é a 
aytoy, Kal avTov edwKev Kepadrny Umep wavTa TH éxkAn- 
cia, BnTis €oTiy TO THA avTOV, TO TANPwua TOU Ta 


a / 
TavTa évy Taow mAnpoupevou. 


dmép mavra] repeats the mayra of 
the quotation, which itself points back 
to mdons...mavrés in %. 21. 

23. TO mAnpopa xt.r.| ‘the ful- 
ness (or fulfilment) of Him who 
all in all ts being filled (or ful- 
filled)’. On the meaning of mA7jpepa, 
see the detached note. 

Ta wavra év macw| The phrase is 
used adverbially. It is more emphatic 
than the classical adverb ravraraoupr, 
which does not occur in the New 
Testament. It is found, though not 
adverbially, in 1 Cor. xii 6 6 adros 
beds, 6 évepyav Ta mayra év Taow 
(where however év waco. may mean 
‘in all men’); and as a predicate in 
1 Cor. xv 28 iva 7 6 Geos mavra év 
mao, and with a slight variation in 
Col. iii 11 GAAa mavra Kal év raow 
Xpioréds. In each of the last two 
cases there is some evidence for 
reading ra mavra: but the absence of 
the article is natural in the predicate. 
This use of the phrase as applied to 
God and to Christ makes it the more 
appropriate here. St Paul uses 
mavra adverbially in 1 Cor. ix 25, x 33 
(mdvra traci dpéoxw), xi 2, Phil. iv 
13; and likewise ra wavra in this 
epistle iv 15 tva...avénowper eis adrév 
Ta m@avra, an important parallel, 

mAnpoupevov] There is no justifica- 
tion for the rendering ‘ that filleth all 
inall’(A.V.). The only ancient version 
which gives this interpretation is the 
Syriac Vulgate. In English it ap- 
pears first in Tyndale’s translation 
(1534). The chief instances cited for 
mAnpovocba as middle are those in 
which a captain is said to man his 
ship (vaiy wAnpovoar), i.e. ‘to get it 
filled’, But this idiomatic use of the 
middle (comp. maida d:ddcKeoOar) 
affords no justification for taking it 
here in what is really the active 


IT. 


\ lan of 
*Kat vuas ovtas 


sense. St Paul does indeed speak of 
Christ as ascending ‘that He might 
fill all things’; but then he uses the 
active voice, iva mAnpooy Ta wavra 
(iv 10). Had his meaning been the 
same here, we can hardly doubt that 
he would have said wAnpoivros. 

The passive sense is supported by 
the early versions. (1) The Latin. 
Cod, Claromont. has supplementum 
qui omnia et in omnibus impletur. 
The usual Latin is plenitudo etus qut 
omnia in omnibus adimpletur: so 
Victorinus, Ambrosiaster and the 
Vulgate. (2) Zhe Syriac. The 
Peshito indeed gives an active mean- 
ing: but we have evidence that the 
earlier Syriac version, of which the 
Peshito was a revision, took the word 
as passive; for it is so taken in 
Ephraim’s commentary, which is pre- 
served in an Armenian translation. 
(3) The Egyptian. Both the Bohairic 
and the Sahidic take the verb in the 
passive sense. 

Origen and Chrysostom gave a pas- 
sive sense to the participle (see the 
citations in the footnote to the expo- 
sition). So did Theodore, though his 
interpretation is involved: he says 
(Cramer Catena, p. 129) ovk eimev Sri 
Ta mavra mAnpol, GAA’ ort avros ev Tact 
mwAnpovrats touréotiv, év mace mAnpns 
éoriv x.t.r. The Latin commentators 
had adimpletur, and could not give 
any other than a passive meaning. 

II. 1, 2. ‘Next, you may see that 
power as it has been at work in your- 
selves. 


Your former life was a death rather 
than a life. You shaped your con- 


duct after the fashion of the present — 


world, after the will of the power 


You also it has raised from — 
the dead. For you were dead—not — 
with a physical death such as was the ~ 
death of Christ, but dead in your sins. — 





IE -3] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


153 


A ~ / \ lon ~ 
veKpoUS TOLS TapaTTWMAaTLY Kal Tals duapTtias vor, 


Ly \ / A \ In a 
*y ais TOTE TEPLETATHTATE KATA TOV alwva TOU KOO {OU 


that dominates it—Satan and his un- 
seen satellites—the inspiring force of 
those who refuse obedience to God’. 

I. vexpovs Tots raparropacw| ‘You 
were dead—not indeed with a physi- 
cal death; but yet really dead in 
virtue of your trespasses and sins’. 
The dative is not properly instru- 
mental (if the meaning had been 
‘put to death by’, we should have 
had vevexpwpévovs), but is attached to 
the adjective by way of. definition. 
The dative in Col. ii 14, rd ka? jyay 
xetpdoypadoyr rots Séypacw,is somewhat 
similar. In the parallel passage 
Col. ii 13, vexpovs évras Trois maparra- 
pacw kal tn dkxpoBvotia ths oapKkos 
vpov, it is clear that the uncircum- 
cision is not the instrument of death. 
We cannot render the dative better 
than by the preposition ‘72’. 

2. meptematnoare| Ilepemareiy is 
used to express a manner of life only 
once in the Synoptic Gospels, viz. in 
Mark vii 5 ov mepirarotvow...caTa THY 
mapadoow tov mpecButéporv. It is 
similarly used once in the Acts (xxi 
21, Trois €Geow mepimareiv), and once in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii 9, 
Bpepacw, ev ois ovk &peAdnOncay oi 
wepinarovvres). These three instances 
refer to the regulation of life in 
accordance with certain external 
ordinances. They do not refer to 
general moral conduct. This latter 
sense is found in the New Testament 
only in the writings of St Paul and 
St John. Thus it occurs twice in 
St John’s Gospel (the metaphor of 
‘walking’ being strongly felt), and 
ten times in his Epistles. It is 
specially frequent in St Paul’s 
writings, being found in every epistle, 
if we except the Pastoral Epistles. 
It occurs seven times in this epistle, 

It is not found in 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 
_ Jude or the Apocalypse: in these 


writings another word takes its place, 
namely mopevecdar—a word also 
used four times in this sense by St 
Luke (Luke i 6; viii 14, a noteworthy 
place; Acts ix 31, xiv 16): but 
neither St Paul nor §8t John em- 
ploys this word so. 

This metaphor of ‘walking’ or 
‘going’ is not Greek, but Hebrew in 
its origin. It is in harmony with the 
fact that from the first Christianity 
was proclaimed as a Way (Acts ix 2, 
xviii 25, 26, &c.). 

There are two words which express 
the same idea from the Greek point 
of view: (1) modtreverOar, a 
characteristically Greek expression : 
for conduct to a Greek was mainly a 
question of relation to the State : so 
Acts xxiii I éyé maoq ovvesdnoe 
dyaOj memodirevxpat td Oed, and 
Phil. i 27 povoy d&iws tod evayyehiov 
Tov Xpiorov modtrever Ge. (2) dvacr pé- 
peo Oat (once in 2 Cor., Eph., 1 Tim. ; 
twice in Heb.; once in 1 Pet., 2 Pet.), 
with its noun avaorpody (once in Gal., 
Eph., 1 Tim., Heb., Jas. ; six times in 
1 Pet., twice in 2 Pet.). 

While we recognise the picturesque 
metaphor involved in the use of 
wepurarety for moral conduct, we must 
not suppose that it was consciously 
present to the Apostle’s mind when- 
ever he used the word. Here, for 
example, it is clearly synonymous 
with dvacrpégher Oat, which he employs 
in the parallel phrase of 2 3. 

Kara Tov aidva rod Koopov rovrov]| 
This is a unique combination of two 
phrases, each of which is frequently 
found in St Paul’s writings—o aidy 
odros and 6 Kdcpos ovros : See the note 
on i 21. The combination of syn- 
onyms for the sake of emphasis 
may be illustrated by several phrases 
of this epistle: i 5 xara ri evdoxiay 
rou OeAjparos avrov, II Kara tiv 


154 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[II 2 


? la / o~ sf ~ 
TOUTOU, KATA TOV aPXoVTA THs EEOVTLas TOU aEpos, TOV 


lanl ld land ~ com la > 
TVEUMATOS TOU VvUV EvepyouUVTOS Ev TOIS ULOIS THS a7reEl- 


BovAiy rod GeAnparos avrov, 19 Kata 
Thy évépyevay Tov Kpdarous Ths loxvos 
avrov, iV 23 TO mvevpatt TOU vods Var. 

kara tov adpxovra] The Apostle 
takes term after term from the 
current phraseology, and adds them 
together to bring out his meaning. 
Compare with the whole of this 
passage, both for style and for 
subject matter, vi 12 mpos tas dpxas, 
mpos Tas ée&ovoias, mpos Tous Koo Ho- 
Kpdtopas Tod oKorous TovTov, mpos Ta 
TvEevpaTiKa Ths tmovnpias év Tois emov- 
pavios. There he represents his 
readers as struggling against the 
world-forces, in accordance with which 
their former life, as here described, 
had been lived. 

With the term 6 dpyay x.r.A. com- 
pare Mark iii 22 (Matt. ix 34) ev ro 
dpxovre rev Satpovioy, and Matt. xii 24 
(Luke xi 15) év r@ Bee{eBovA apxovre 
trav Samovioy: also John xii 31 6 
apxev tod Kdcpov Tovrov, XiV 30, 
xvi 11. The plural of dpyovres rod 
ai@vos rovrov is found in 1 Cor. ii6, 8, 
apparently in a similar sense. In 
2 Cor. iv 4 we read of 6 Oeds rod aidvos 
Tovrov. 

tis efovcias tov dépos| Compare 
Col.i 13 os épvcaro jas ex rijs €Eovclas 
Tov oxorovs, and Acts xxvi 18 rod 
emuotpéewat amo oKétous eis das kat 
ths e€ovcias Tov Sarava emt rov Gedy: 
also our Lord’s words to those who 
arrested Him, Luke xxii 53 dA 
aitn €oTly vuav 7 wpa kal 7 é€ovcia 
TOU OKOTOUS. 

In the Testaments of the Twelve 
Patriarchs (Benj. 3) we have tré rod 
depiov mvevparos Tov Bedsdp: but we 
cannot be sure that this language is 
independent of the present passage. 
The same must be said of the con- 
ception of the firmament in the 
Ascension of Isaiah, as a region 
between the earth and the first 
heaven, filled with contending spirits 


of evil: c. 7, ‘We ascended into the 
firmament,..and there I beheld Sam- 
mael [who elsewhere (c. 1) is identified 
with Malkira, ‘the prince of evil’] 
and his powers’, &c. There can be 
no doubt, however, that the air was 
regarded by the Jews, as well as by 
others, as peopled by spirits, and 
more especially by evilspirits. Com- 
pare Philo de gigant. 2 (Mangey, 
Pp. 263), ovs GAAo Pircaodor Saipovas, 
dyyéhous Mavojjs ciwbev dvopatery 
wWoxai d€ efor karh Tov dépa meTopevat : 
and more especially in his exposition 
of Jacob’s Dream (de somn. i 22, 
p- 641): KAtpaE roivuy ev pev TO 
Koon@ ovpBorikds Aێyerar 6 ap, ov 
Baows pev ete yi, kopup? 5é odpaves- 
and yap Tis ceAnuiaxns oaipas ...dxpt 
yiis €oxarns 6 anp mavrn Tabels EpOaxer 
obros bé €ote Wuydv dowparar oikos, 
xt.A. For the Palestinian doctrine 
of evil spirits reference may be made 
to the instructive chapter Die Stinde 
und die Démonen in Weber Altsyn. 
Theol. pp. 242 ff.; see also Thackeray, 
as referred to in the note on p. 133 
above. In a curious passage in 
Athanasius, de incarn. 25, our Lord’s 
crucifixion is regarded as purifying 
the air: povos yap év TQ dépe tis 
droOvncket 6 oTaup@ Tedevovpevos* 
816 Kat elxdrws tovTrov vimépewev 6 
KUpios* ovTw yap wYwbels Toy pév dépa 
éxabapifev dao te this SvaBodrkhs Kal 
maons Tov Satpovey émiBovATs, K.TA. 
Tod mvevpatos| We should have 
expected rather 7d mvedyua, in apposi- 
tion with rov dpyovra. It may be 
that this was the Apostle’s meaning, 
and that the genitive is due to an un- 
conscious assimilation to the genitives 
which immediately precede. If this 
explanation be not accepted, we must 
regard rov mvevparos as in apposition 
with rys eEovcias and governed by 
Tov Gpxovra. In 1 Cor. ii 12 we find 
TO mvevpa Tov Koopou Opposed to Td- 








aT} 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


155 


/ e \ ~ / 

Gias: 3éy ois Kal ruels mavTes dvertpadnuéevy Tore éy 
~ / ~ ~ ~ 

Tats ériOupias Tis CapKos Huw, ToLObYTES TA OeAnMaTA 
~ \ \ a ~ \ / / 

TNS TapKkos Kal Twv dravoiwy, Kal ucla Téxva Hioer 


Tvevpa TO ex Tov beot. But we have 
no parallel to the expression rov 
dpxovra.. TOU TVYEUpPATOS K.7-A. 

Tov viv évepyoorros | So ‘this world’ 
is spoken of as 6 voy aidv in 1 Tim. vi 
17, 2 Tim. iv 10, Tit. ii 12, The word 
evepyeiv, like the word mvedpa, seems 
purposely chosen in order to suggest 
a rivalry with the Divine Spirit: see 
the detached note on évepyeiv. 

3—7. ‘Not that we Jews were in 
any better case. We also lived in 
sin, following the dictates of our 
lower desires. We, no less than the 
Gentiles, were objects in ourselves of 
the Divine wrath. In ourselves, I 
say: but the merciful God has not 
left us to ourselves. Dead as we 
were, Gentiles and Jews alike, He 
has quickened us with Christ,—Grace, 
free grace, has saved you !—and raised 
us with Him, and seated us with Him 
in the heavenly sphere: and all this, 
in Christ Jesus. For His purpose has 
been to display to the ages that are 
yet to come the surpassing wealth of 
His grace, in the goodness shewn 
toward us in Christ Jesus’. 

3. €v ois kal npeis|] ‘wherein we 
also’: so the Latin ‘in guibus’ as in 
v. 2, not ‘inter quos’. At first sight 
it seems as though ev ois must be 
rendered as ‘among whom’, i.e. 
‘among the sons of disobedience’, 
But the parallel which the Apostle is 
drawing is brought out more forcibly 
by the rendering ‘herein’. Thus 
we have (v. 1) dpas dvras vexpods Trois 
TapanT@paciy kal Tais duaprias var, 
ev ais mote mepiematnaate...(v. 3) ev ois 
Kal nets wavTes avertpadnpey Tore... 
(v. 5) kat dvras nas vexpovs Tots mapa- 
mrepacw. That the relative is in the 
first instance in the feminine is merely 
due to the proximity of dyapriats. 
After the sentence which has inter- 


vened the neuter is more natural; 
and that the word mapamrapacty was 
principally present to the Apostle’s 
mind is shown by the omission of kai 
Tais duaptias when the phrase is 
repeated. The change from zepura- 
teiv tO avaotpépeo Gar (on these syno- 
nyms see the note on v. 2) does not 
help to justify the supposed change 
in the meaning of the preposition:. for 
dvactpépecOar and dvactpop) are 
frequently followed by év to denote 
condition or circumstances. 

For the working out of the parallel, 
compare i i1I,13é€v@xKal exAnpaOnper... 
év @ kal Upeis, and ii 21, 22 év @ Taca 
olkodopr}.. .<v @ kal vpeis ovvorxodop- 
cic6e. In the present instance the 
parallel is yet further developed by 
the correspondence of év trois viois ris 
drrevBias (v. 2) and jueba réxva dice 
opyiis (v. 3). 

ev Tais émOupias| The preposition 
here has the same sense as in the 
phrase év ois x.7.A.; 80 that the latter 
of the two phrases is to be regarded 
as an expansion of the former. 

ra Oednpata] The plural is found 
in Acts xiii 22, and as a variant in 
Mark iii 35. 

trav Siavoav| ‘Sour minds’, With 
thisand with r7s capxos we must supply 
nuav, Which was used with rijs capkos 
at its first mention and therefore is 
not repeated. For the rendering 
‘thoughts’ no parallel is to be found 
in the New Testament. In Luke i 51 
dudvoia xapdias avray means strictly 
‘the mind of their heart’; comp. 
t Chron. xxix 18. In the Lxx we 
usually find xapdia as the rendering 


of 25 (225); but 38 times we have 
dcavora, which is only very exceptionally 
used to represent any other word. 
That the plural is used only in the 
case of dvavorey is due to the impos- 


156 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. hit gg 


doyis ws Kal ot Nouroi: +6 Sé Oeds wAOUatOs wy év édEEL, 
Sia THY TOAAHY ayarny avToU jy Hyamnoey ruas, SKal 
ovras [Las veKpous TOL TaparTouUacy TUvEeCwOTrOino eV 
TO XPLTTH,—yYapiTl EoTE TETWTMEVOI— kal TuNYyELpEV 
Kal ouvecdbioey év Tois éroupaviows év Xpior@ “Incov, 
"va évoeiEnra év Tots aiwow Tots érEepyouevolts TO 
vmepBadAov WHOUTOS THS YapLtTOs avuTou év XONTTOTHTL 
ép’ rds év Xpict@ Inood. *tH yap xapiti éore ceow- 
opévor Oia wintews’ Kal TOUTO ovK é€F Vuev, Yeot TO 


sibility of saying rév capxay in sucha 
context. 

réxva,..opyis| In Hebraistic phrases 
of this kind réxva and viol are used 
indifferently as representatives of ‘32: 
compare ii 2, v 8. 

dice] ‘by nature’, in the sense of 
‘in ourselves’. Other examples of 
this adverbial use are Rom. ii 14 
6tav yap €Ovn...pvoeu Ta Tov vopov 
mowmow, Gal. ii 15 nyeis pioee “lov- 
Saiot, iv 8 Trois pices py ovow Oeois. 

5. ouve(woroinaey] The word oc- 
curs only here and in Col. ii 13, 
cuve(woroincey vas ovv aira. The 
thought there expressed makes it 
plain that ré ypior@ is the right 
reading here, and not €v r@ xpioTe, 
as is found in B and some other 
authorities. The mistake has arisen 
from a dittography of en. 

xapirt] In pointed or proverbial 
expressions the article is by preference 
omitted. When the phrase, which is 
here suddenly interjected, is taken up 
again and dwelt upon in z. 8, we have 
TH yap xapire K7.A, 

6. cuviyerpev kal ovvexabicer] i.e., 
‘together with Christ’, as in the case 
of cuvetworoincey just before. So in 
Col. ii 12, cuvradévres avre...cvrnyép- 
énre. The compound verbs echo the 
eyeipas and kaicas of i 20. 

€v tois émovpaviots] Compare i 3, 
20. This completes the parallel with 
the exaltation of Christ. °Ev Xpiord 
"Incod is added, as év Xpicr@ in i 3, 


although civ Xpior is implied by the 
preceding verbs: for év Xpiored “Incov 
states the relation in the completest 
form, and accordingly the Apostle 
repeats it again and again (vz. 7, 10). 
7. évdeiénra| ‘shew forth’. The 
word is similarly used in Rom. ix 22 
ei 5¢ Oédov 6 beds evdei~acOar rh 
épynv, Where it is suggested by a 
citation in v. 17 of Ex. ix 16 dras 
evdeiEopar ev col THv Svvapiv pov. 
xpnorornt.| ‘kindness’, or ‘ good- 
ness’, The word is used of the Divine 
kindness in Rom. ii 4 rod mXovrov tis 
xpyorornros avrod, and in Rom. xi 22, 
where it is contrasted with dzoropia: 
also in Tit. iii 4, where it is linked 
with @Aavéperia: compare also Luke 
Vi 35 dre avros xpnotos éorty K.T.A. 
8—10. ‘Grace, I say, free grace has 
saved you, grace responded to by 
faith. Itis not from yourselves that 
this salvation comes: itis a gift, and 
the gift is God’s. Merit has no part 
in it: boasting is excluded. Itis He 
that hath madeus, and not weourselves: 
He has created us afresh in Christ 
Jesus, that we may do good works 
which He has made ready for our 
doing. Not of works, but unto works, 
is the Divine order of our salvation’. 
8. xat tovro] ‘and that’, as in 
Rom, xiii II kat totro eiddéres rov 
caipov. It is a resumptive expression, 
independent of the construction. It 
may be pleaded that, as da ricrews 
is an important element, added to the 





~~, aie. 


II 9—11] 


a af ¢€ 
ddpov' SovK é& Epywv, iva wy TIs KavynonTat. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


157 


T° aUuTOU 


lA 5) V4 6é 5) ~ 3° A “4 
yap €opev roinua, KTiobevtes ev Xpiot@ “Inco émt 
af ~ < / ig ~ 
Epyos ayabois ois mpontoiuacev 6 Beds iva év adrois 


/ 
TEPLTTATHO WHEY. 


IrA | 4 e/ \ € ~ \ Z6 - / 
LO KVNMOVEVETE OTL TTOTE UMELS TA EUVH EV TAapPKi, 


phrase of v. 5 when that phrase is re- 
peated, cai rodro should be interpreted 
as specially referring to wioris. The 
difference of gender is not fatal to 
such a view: but the context demands 
the wider reference ; more especially 
the phrase ovx« e€ épywy shews that 
the subject of the clause is not ‘faith’, 
but ‘salvation by grace’. 

Geod +d Sdpoy] Literally ‘God’s is 
the gift’, Ge0d being the predicate. 
But this is somewhat harsh as a 
rendering; and the sense is sufficiently 
given in our English version: ‘it is 
the gift of God’. 

10. soinua] The word occurs 
again in the New Testament only in 
Rom. i 20 rots roimpacw voovpeva 
kaOopara. We have no single word 
which quite suitably renders it: 
‘workmanship’ is a little unfortunate, 
as suggesting a play upon ‘orks’, 
which does not exist in the Greek. 

én €pyous ayabois| ‘with a view to 
good works’, Compare 1 Thess. iv 7 
ov yap éxadecer Huds 6 Oeds emi dxa@ap- 
cia, and Gal. v 13 pets yap én’ eAevOepia 
éxAnOnre. See also Wisd. ii 23 6 Geds 
éxticev Tov avOpwrov én adapcia, 
Ep. ad Diognet. 7 rotrov mpos avrovs 
dréorevev' apa ye, ds dvOpdmewy av tis 
Aoyioairo, emt tupavvids Kat PoB@ kal 
xaramAnéer; Theinterval between this 
usage and the idiom by which émi with 
a dative gives the condition of a 
transaction is bridged by such a phrase 
as we find, for example, in Xenoph. 
Memorab. i 4 4 mpéme pev ta én 
adedeia yryvopeva yradpns eivat Epya. 

ois mpontoiwacev| by attraction for 
& mponroipacev. The verb is found in 
Rom. ix 23, emt oxevn €Aéous, & mpo- 
nroipacev eis Od€av. 


11—18. ‘Remember what you 
were: you, the Gentiles—since we 
must speak of distinctions in the 
flesh—the Uncircumcision as opposed 
to the Circumcision. Then, when 
you were without Christ, you were 
aliens and foreigners; you had no 
share in the privileges of Israel; you 
were in the world with no hope, no 
God, Now all is changed: for you 
are in Christ Jesus: and accordingly, 
though you were far off, you are made 
near by the covenant-blood of Christ. 
For it is He who is our peace. He 
has made the two parts one whole. 
He has broken down the balustrade 
that was erected to keep us asunder: 
He has ended in His own person the 
hostility that it symbolised: He has 
abrogated the legal code of separating 
ordinances. For His purpose was by 
a new creation to make the two men 
one man in Himself; and so not only 
to make peace between the two, but 
to reconcile both in one body to God 
through the cross, by which He killed 
the old hostility. And He came with 
the Gospel of peace—peace to far and 
near alike: not only making the two 
near to each other, but giving them 
both in one Spirit access to the 
Father’. 

II. dpets ra €Ovy] The term ‘Gen- 
tiles’, which has been implied in vpeis 
so often before, is now for the first 
time expressly used. In an instructive 
article On some political terms em- 
ployed in the New Testament (Class. 
Rey. vol. i pp. 4 ff., 42 ff.) Canon E. L. 
Hicks says (p. 42): “’E@vos, the corre- 
lative of Xads in the mouth of Hellen- 
istic Jews, was a word that never had 
any importance as a political term 


158 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


{II 12 


> 4 \ lan / n~ 

ol Neryopevot dxpoBvaTia UTO THS NEyoMEVNS TrEPLTOMNS 
\ if, ; J S. ~ ~ 5 / 

év TAapKL YELVOT OLNTOV,— OTL NTE TW Kaipw EKELY 

~~ / lo / 5G 

ywpis Xpirtov amnAdNoTpiwuevor THs TWoATElas TOU 


until after Alexander. It was when 
Hellenism pushed on eastward, and 
the policy of Alexander and his suc- 
cessors founded cities as outposts of 
trade and civilization, that the con- 
trast was felt and expressed between 
modes and @6vn. Hellenic life found 
its normal type in the méArs, and 
barbarians who lived xara xépas or in 
some less organised form were ¢6vn’. 
He refers to Droysen Hellenismus 
iii 1, pp. 31f. for illustrations, and 
mentions among others Polybius vii 9, 
where zroAers and €6vn are repeatedly 
contrasted. The word ¢6vy was thus 
ready to hand when the Lxx came to 
express the invidious sense of DA, 
which is found so commonly in Deu- 
teronomy, the Psalms and the Pro- 
phets. It is curious that, while St 
Paul freely employs €6vn, he never 
uses the contrasted term dads, except 
where he is directly referring to a 
passage of the Old Testament. 

év capxi| The addition of these 
words suggests the external and tem- 
porary nature of the distinction. For 
their position after ra ¢@yn see the 
note on i 15. Here it was perhaps 
unavoidable: for ra év capxi €6vn or 
Ta €Oyn Ta év capxi Would suggest the 
existence of another class of ¢6yn: 
whereas the meaning is ‘those who 
are the Gentiles according to a dis- 
tinction which is in the flesh’. Simi- 
larly we have rijs Aeyouévns meptropijs 
€v capki. 

of Aeyopevar] ‘which are called’. 
The phrase is not depreciatory, as 
‘the so-called’ would be in English. 
The Jews called themselves 7 zep:- 
rou7, and called the Gentiles 7 dxpo- 
Bvoria. St Paul does not here use 
the latter name, which’ was one of 
contempt; but he cites it as used 
by others. 


Ths Aeyopevns}| This is directly 
suggested by of Aeyouevor. The Apostle 
may have intended to suggest that 
he himself repudiated both terms 
alike. In Rom. ii 28 f. he refuses to 
recognise the mere outward sign of 
circumcision: ovdé 7 év Te havep@ ev 
oapki mepiroun * dAAG...mepiroun Kapdias 
év mvevpatt, ov ypdypart. He thus 
claims the word, as it were, for higher 
uses; as he says of the Gentiles them- 
selves in Col. ii 11, weprerpnOnre mept- 
TOU GXELPOTTOLTE...€V TH TEptTouy TOU 
Xplorov. 

xetporounrou| This is the only place 
where this word occurs in St Paul’s 
epistles. But we have dyetporroinros in 
2 Cor. V I oikiay dyetporroinrov aidmoy 
éy tots ovpavois, and in Col. ii 11 
(quoted above). It serves to empha- 
sise the transience of the distinction, 
though it casts no doubt on the validity 
of it while it lasted. 

12. yapis] ‘without’, or ‘apart 
Srom’. St Paul does not use avev, 
which is found only in Matt. x 29 
dvev Tov matpds vuov, in an inter- 
polation into Mark xiii 2 dvev yeipar, 
and twice in 1 Peter, where yapis is 
not used. It is usual to take yapis 
Xpicrov as a predicate and to place a 
comma after it. This is perfectly 
permissible: but the parallel between 
T@ Kaip@ exeiv@ xwpis Xpiorod and yuri 
dé €v XpioT@ "Incov makes it preferable 
to regard the words as the condition 
which leads up to the predicates which 
follow. 

dmn\dorpiopévor] The Apostle seems 
to have in mind Ps. lxviii (Ixix) 9 dan)- 
Aorpimpevos eyevnOnv (NT WD) rots 
adedgois pov, kai £évos rois viois ris 
pntpos pov. This will account for his 
choice of a word which does not appear 
to be a term of Greek civic life. Its 
ordinary use is either of the alienation 


io = i 


ee 








133] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


159 


9 \ \ / ~ ~ ~ 
Iopanr Kal Eévor THv OiaOynKwv THs érayyeNias, éArisa 
\ »/ AY Sh > ~ / > ra) 
ay exovtes kat ae év TH KOoUM. “vuvi OE év XpicTe@ 
é ‘ 


of property, or of alienation of feeling : 
the latter sense prevails in Col. i 21, cat 
vpas wore ovtas amnAAoTpLwpévovs kal 


€xOpovs tH S.avoia......amoxariAAakev, 


where estrangement from God is in 
question. The participial sense is 
not to be pressed: strictly speaking 
the Gentiles could not have been alien- 
ated from the sacred commonwealth 
of which they had never been members. 
The word is used almost as a noun, 
as may be seen from its construction 
with dvres in iv 18 and in Col. i 21. 
So too here we have dru 7re...amnd- 
Aorpr@pévor...kat Eévor. It thus scarcely 
differs from d\ddrpios: comp. Clem. 
Rom. 7, of the Ninevites, €\aBov cwtn- 
piay, kaimep GAXOrptoe Tod Geod ovtes. 

modtreias] ‘commonwealth’, or 
‘nolity’. In the only other place 
where the word occurs in the New 
Testament, Acts xxii 28, it is used of 
the Roman citizenship. In later 
Greek it was commonly used for 
‘manner of life’: compare sodcrev- 
eoOa, and see the note on zepurareiv 
in ii 2. In this sense it is taken here 
by the Latin version, which renders 
it by ‘conuersatio’. But the contrast 
in v. 19 (cuvrodirat) is decisive against 
this view. 

&évo.] The use of &évos with a 
genitive is not common: Soph. Qed. 
Rex 219f. and Plato Apol. 1 (Eévas 
éyew) are cited. Here the construc- 
tion is no doubt suggested by the 
genitive after dmndAorpiopévor. In 
Clem. Rom. 1 we have a dative, rijs 
re dAdorpias cat Eévys Trois ékdexTois 
Tov Oeov, papas Kal dvociov ordceas : 
on which Lightfoot cites Clem. Hom. 
vi 14 w&s dAnOeias dAdorpiay ovcay Kal 
Eévnv. In the papyrus of 348 AD. 
cited above on i 11, the sister who 
has taken the Aléos ovroxémrns as her 
share of the inheritance declares that 
she has no claim whatever on the 
ciraderixy pnxavy: ‘hereby I admit 


that I have no share in the aforesaid 
grinding-machine, but am a stranger 
and alien therefrom (dda &évov pe 
eivat kat dAdOdrptoy ati)’. 

trav Siabnxov} The plural is found 
also in Rom, ix 4 ov...ai divadjKar. 
For the covenant with Abraham, see 
Gen. xvii 7; for the covenant with 
the People under Moses, see Exod. 
xxiv 8. 

tis émayyedias]| Comp. i 13 and 
iii 6, where the Gentiles are declared 
to share in the Promise through 
Christ. 

edmida pr €xovres| The same phrase, 
in a more restricted sense, occurs in 
1 Thess. iv. 13 KkaOds Kat of oul of p71) 
éxovres Amida. Christ as ‘the hope’ 
of the Gentiles was foretold by the 
prophets (Isa, xi Io, xlii 4; comp. 
Rom. xv 12 and Matt. xii 21), and was 
the ‘secret’ or ‘mystery’ entrusted 
to St Paul (Col. i 27). 

ade] The word does not occur 
elsewhere in the whole of the Greek 
Bible. It is used here not as a term 
of reproach, but as marking the 
mournful climax of Gentile disability. 

év t@ koop@] These words are not 
to be taken as a separate item in the 
description: but yet they are not 
otiose. They belong to the two pre- 
ceding terms. The Gentiles were in 
the world without a hope and with no 
God: in the world, that is, with no- 
thing to lift them above its material- 
ising influences. 

St Paul uses the word xocpos with 
various shades of meaning. The fun- 
damental conception is that of the 
outward order of things, considered 
more especially in relation to man. 
It is rarely found without any moral 
reference, as in phrases of time, Rom. 
i 20, Eph. i 4, or of place, Rom. i 8, 
Col. i 6. But the moral reference is 
often quite a general one, with no 
suggestion of evil: asin 1 Cor. vii 31 


160 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[II 14 


qn ~ / a/ uf > ‘ 
Incotd vueis of tote OvTEs MaKpdan éyernOnTe eErryc ev 


~ ef a ~ 
TW ALMaTL TOU XPLTTOv. 


14 ’ \ / > e > P) ; 
QUTOS yao EoTLW 7 EIiPHNH 


MOV, 6 ToMTas TA duPOTEPA EV KaL TO METOTOLYOV TOU 


Xpepevor Tov Kogpov, 2 Cor. i 12 ave- 
oTpadnueyv ev TO koopa, Tepircorepws 
dé mpos vuas. In the phrase 6 kocpos 
ovros there is however a suggestion 
of opposition to the true order: see 
the note on i 21. Again, xdopos is 
used of the whole world of men in 
contrast with the elect people of 
Israel, Rom. iv 13, xi 12, 15. The 
world, as in opposition to God, falls 
under the Divine judgment, Rom. iii 
6, 19, 1 Cor. xi 32: ‘the saints shall 
judge the world’, 1 Cor. vi 2. Yet 
the world finds reconciliation with 
God in Christ, 2 Cor. v 19. In three 
passages St Paul uses the remarkable 
expression Ta oroixeia Tod Koopov, Of 
world-forces which held men in bond- 
age until they were delivered by 
Christ, Gal. iv 3, Col. ii 8, 20. In 
the last of these passages the expres- 
sion is followed by a phrase which is 
parallel to that of our text, ri os 
(avres ev koopw Soypariferbe; Limi- 
tation to the world was the hopeless 
and godless lot of the Gentiles apart 
from Christ. 

13. paxpav...€yyvs]| These words, 
and eipyvy in the next verse, are from 
Isa. lvii 19: see below, v. 17. 

€v T@ aipatt] Compare Col. i 20 
elpnvorroujcas Sia Tov atparos Tov orav- 
pov avrov. 

14. adrdés] He, in His own person; 
compare ev avr@, %. 15. 

Ta dudérepa év] Below we have 
Tovs Svo...eis eva GvOpwror (v. 15), and 
Tous duorépous (v. 16). Comp. 1 Cor. 
lii 8 6 hurevwr kai 6 roritwy ep eiow: 
and, on the other hand, Gal. iii 28 
mavres yap vpeis els eore ev Xpiore 
‘Ingodv. At first the Apostle is con- 
tent to speak of Jew and Gentile as 
the two parts which are combined 
into one whole: in the sequel he 
prefers to regard them as two men, 


made by a fresh act of creation into 
one new man. : 

To pecoraxov| The only parallel to 
this word appears to be 6 pecdrorxos 
in a passage of Eratosthenes (apud 
Athen. vii 14, p. 281 D), in which he 
says of Aristo the Stoic, 74y d€ more 
kal TovTov medwdpaxa Tov THs ndovijs 
kal dpetis peodrotyov Swopirrovra, Kal 
avapawopevoy rapa TH jdovi. 

tov dpaypov| ‘the fence’, or ‘the 
partition’. The allusion is to the 
dpvdaxros or balustrade in the Temple, 
which marked the limit to which a 
Gentile might advance. Compare 
Joseph. B. J. v 5 2 dia rovrov mpor- 
ovray emt To dSevrepov iepov Spvpakros 
meptBeBAnTo ALOwos, Tpimnxus pev dWos, 
mavy Sé xaprévrws Sueipyaopévos: é€v 
avT@ b€ eiornxecav €& icov Siacthparos 
oTiAa Tov Tis ayveias mpoonpuatvovoat 
vopoy, ai rev “EAAnuixois ai dé ‘Pwparxois 
ypappacwy, pndéva addrAdgvudov évros Tod 
ayiov maptévars TO yap Sevrepov iepov 
dy.ov é€xadeiro, One of these inscrip- 
tions was discovered by M. Clermont 
Ganneau in May 1871. Owing to the 
troubles in Paris he announced his 
discovery in a letter to the Athe- 
naeum, and afterwards published a 
full discussion, accompanied by a fac- 
simile, in the Revue Archéologique 
1872, vol. xxiii pp. 214 ff, 290 ff 
The inscription, which is now at Con- 
stantinople, runs as follows : 


MHOENAAAAOTENHEISTIO 
PEYESOAIENTOSTOYTIE 
PITOIEPONTPY®AKTOY KAI 
TTEPIBOAOYOSAANAH 
POHEAYTNIAITIOSES 
TAIAIATOE=AKOQAOY 
OEINOANATON 


Further references to this barrier 
are found in Joseph. Antt. xv 11 5 
(<pxiov AcBivov Spudaxrov ypad7 Ko- 








II 15; 16] 
fn / \ 
ppayyuou Avaoas, > TnHv 
/ 4 4 > 
VOMOV TwY EvTOAWY év 
/ / la 
ovo KTloON €v avTw Els 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


161 


sf ~ \ 5) ~ 

ExOpav év TH TapKt avTov, TOY 
/ / J 

ddypaci Katapynoas, iva Tovs 

4 \ of an 

eva Kawov avOpwrov rowdy eipn- 


Y 6 Ne / \ / > 
yyy, “Kat awoxatadAag—y Tous auportépous év Evi TWpMATI 


Avov eiovévae Tov dAdoebvn OavariKijs 
arewWoupérns ths Cnpias), B. J. vi 2 4: 
comp. Philo Leg. ad Caium 31 (M. Ir 
577). Past this barrier it was sup- 
posed that St Paul had brought 
Trophimus the Ephesian (ov évopucov 
dre eis TO iepov eionyayev 6 Iaidos), 
Acts xxi 29. 

Avoas]| In the literal sense caradvew 
is more common: but we have the 
simple verb in John ii 19 Avcare rév 
vaov ToUTOD. 

15. tHv €yOpav| If these words be 
taken with Avcas, a metaphorical sense 
must be attributed to the participle, as 
well as the literal. This in itself is 
an objection, though not a fatal one, 
to such a construction. It is in any 
case simpler to take ryy ¢yépay with 
katapynoas, although that verb is 
chosen by an afterthought as speci- 
ally applicable to rév véuov x.7.r. The 
sense remains the same whichever 
construction is adopted. The barrier 
in the Temple court, the hostility 


i between Jew and Gentile, and ‘the 


law of commandments’ (limited as 


i the term is by the defining phrase év 
| Soypacwv) are parallel descriptions of 


the separation which was done away 


din Christ. 


It has been suggested that ryy 
€yOpav é€v ty capi advrov is closely 


jparallel to dmoxreivas riv ¢yOpav ev 
javro (sic) in v. 16; and that the 
jApostle had 
jamoxreivas in the former place, but 


intended to write 


was led away into an explanatory 


|digression, and took up his phrase 
‘later on by a repetition. 


This may 
be a true explanation, so far as the 
intention of the writer is concerned: 





i, 


i — 
= 


but as a matter of fact he has left ry» 
€xOpav at its earlier mention to be 


EPHES.? 


governed by one of the other parti- 
ciples, presumably by xarapyyjoas. 

€v TH oapki avrov] Compare Col. 
1 21, 22 vuvi d€ dmoxatydddynre ev TS 
oodpat. THs capKds avrod dia Tod Bava- 
tov [avrod |. 

tov vouov] In Rom. iii 31 the 
Apostle refuses to use xarapyeivy of 
Tov vouor, although he is willing to say 
katnpynOnuev amo rod vopov in Rom. 
vii 6. Here however he twice limits 
Tov vouoy, and then employs the word 
karapynoas. It is as a code of mani- 
fold precepts, expressed in definite 
ordinances, that he declares it to have 
been annulled. 

év dSoypaow| The word is used of 
imperial decrees, Luke ii 1, Acts xvii 
7; and of the ordinances decreed by 
the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem, 
Acts xvi 4. Its use here is parallel 
to that in Col. ii 14, é€adreiWvas ro kad 
nuaY xelpoypadoy trois Soypaow: see 
Lightfoot’s note on the meaning of 
the word, and on the strange mis- 
interpretation of the Greek commen- 
tators, who took it in both passages 
of the ‘doctrines or precepts of the 
Gospel’ by which the law was abro- 
gated. Comp. also Col. ii 20 (doy- 
pativer be). 

xtion| Compare v. 10 xriobevres ev 
XpiorG “Incov, and iv 24 roy xawoy 
avOpwrov tov Kata Geov ric evra. 

év avr] ‘in Himself’. The earlier 
Mss have aytw, the later for the 
most part eaytw. Whether we write 
avr or avira, the sense is undoubtedly 
reflexive. See Lightfoot’s note on 
Col. i 20. 

16, dmoxaraAddén| On the double 
compound see Lightfoot’s note on 
Col. i 20. 


pe 


162 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[II 17—19 


~ an n~ a \ of s 
TH Oem dia Tov oTavpov, dmoKTeivas THyv éExOpav év 


5 ~ \ > , > , ~ 
auT oO" kal €\Owy eYurredicato eipHNHN UelY 
MAKPAN KAl EIPHNHN TOIC Efry Cc’ 

\ \ / \ is 
MEV THY TPOTAywynY ol aupoTeEpor ev Evt TVEVPATL 


TOIC 


e ma sf 
Bere Ol avVTOU Eyo- 
x 
TOS 


A UA 19 sf x ae A 2 \ / \ / 
TOV TaTEpa. apa OUV OUKETL €O' TE Eevot Kal TT APOLKOL, 


ev avr@| This may be rendered 
either ‘thereby’, i.e. by the cross, or 
‘in Himself’. The latter is the inter- 
pretation of the Latin, ‘in semetipso’. 
Jerome, who is probably following an 
interpretation of Origen’s, says (Val- 
lars. vii 581): ‘Jn ea: non ut in 
Latinis codicibus habetur zn semet- 
ipso, propter Graeci pronominis am- 
biguitatem: ¢v avr@ enim et in 
semetipso et in ea, id est cruce, 
intelligi potest, quia crux, id est 
oravpos, iuxta Graecos generis mas- 
culini est’, 

The interpretation ‘ thereby’ would 
be impossible if, as some suppose, d:a 
Tov oravpov is to be taken with azo- 
xreivas: but that this is not the 
natural construction is shewn by the 
parallel in Col. i 22 vuvi 5€ dmoxarah- 
Adynrte...b1a Tod Oavarov [avrod|, comp. 
Col. i 20. Hither interpretation is 
accordingly admissible. In favour of 
the second may be urged the adrés of 
v. 14 and the év air@ of 7. 15. On 
the suggested parallel with éy r7 
capki avrov see the note on 2. 5. 

17. ednyyedicatok.t.A.| The Apostle 
illustrates and enforces his argument 
by selecting words from two prophetic 
passages, to one of which he has 
already alluded in passing: Isa. lii 7, 
ws apa éml Tay dpéwv, Os Tddes evay- 
yeAcCopévou axony eipyyns, os evayyeXt- 
(duevos ayaa: lvii 19, elpnynv er 
eipnyny trois pakpay kal Tois eyyvs 
ovow. The first of these is quoted 
(somewhat differently) in Rom. x 15, 
and alluded to again in this epistle, 
vi 15. The second is alluded to by 
St Peter on the day of Pentecost, 
Acts li 39. 

18, riv mpocaywyny] ‘our access’: 


so in Rom. vy 2, d¢ ov Kai tiv mpoca- 
yoyny éoxnxapev [rH wiorer] eis THY 
xapw tavTnv: and, absolutely, in Eph. 
iii 12 év @ %youey tHv mappynoiay Kai 
mpocaywyny ev merobnoe. The last 
passage is decisive against the alter- 
native rendering ‘introduction’, not- 
withstanding the parallel in 1 Pet. iii 
18 iva vyas mpocayayn TO Oeg. 

év évi mvevpatt] The close paral- 
lelism between rods dudorépous ev evi 
oopatt TO Oe@ (v. 16) and of adudrepor 
ev évi mvevpati mpos Tov matepa shews 
that the éy mvedya is that which cor- 
responds to the év cdépa, as in iv 4. 
That the ‘one spirit’ is ultimately 
indistinguishable from the personal 
Holy Spirit is true, just in the same 
way that the ‘one body’ is indistin- 
guishable from the Body of Christ: 
but we could not in either case sub- 
stitute one term for the other with- 
out obscuring the Apostle’s meaning. 

19—22. ‘You are, then, no longer 
foreigners resident on sufferance only. 
You are full citizens of the sacred 
commonwealth : you are God’s own, 
the sons of His house. Nay, you are 
constituent parts of the house that is 
in building, of which Christ’s apostles 
and prophets are the foundation, and 
Himself the predicted corner-stone. 
In Him all that is builded is fitted 
and morticed into unity, and is grow- 
ing into a holy temple in the Lord. 
In Him you too are being builded in 
with us, to form a dwellingplace of 
God in the Spirit’. 

19. mapotxot| The technical distine- 
tion between the £évos and the rdpo- 
kos is that the latter has acquired by 
the payment of a tax certain limited 


rights, But both alike are non-citi-\ 


| 





A 


II 20] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


163 


> \ 2 \ ~ “ iy / \ > ~ on) r 
G\Na éoTé CuVTONITaA THY ayiwv Kat olKEtoL TOU Deou, 


V4 3 \ lanl - ~~ > 
*°écroucodopnOevTes eri THO GeueXiw Twv droaTOAwY Kal 
oN sf 4 > ~ ~ ~ 
TpoP~nTwov, OvTOS akpoywvialou av’ToU Xpixtov ‘Inoov, 


zens, Which is St Paul’s point here. 
So the Christians themselves, in 
relation to the world, are spoken of in 
1 Pet. ii 11, from Ps. xxxviii (xxxix) 
13, aS mapotkoe Kal mapemidnuor: and 
this language was widely adopted, 
see Lightfoot on Clem. Rom. pref. For 
mapotkos and its equivalent pérockos 
see E. L. Hicks in Class. Rev. i 5f,, 
Deissmann Neue Bibelst. pp. 54 f. 

cuvrovira| The word was objected 
to by the Atticists: comp. Pollux iii 
5I 6 yap oupmoXirns ov Soxipor, et Kal 
Evpimidns adr@ xéxpntrar ev “Hpakdei- 
dais te kat Onoet (Heracleid. 826, in 
the speech of the Oeparav). It is 
found in Josephus (Anit. xix 2 2), 
and in inscriptions and papyri (Berl. 
Pap. 1 632, 9, 2nd cent. A.D.). 

tov dayiwv| See the note on i I. 
The thought here is specially, if not 
exclusively, of the holy People whose 
privileges they have come to share. 

oiketot| Oikeios is the formal oppo- 
site of d\Adrpwos: ‘one’s own’ in con- 
trast to ‘another’s’: comp. Arist. Rhet, 
i 5 7 rod d€ oiketa eiva 7 pn (Gpos 
éotiv), dray ef avt@ 7 amaddorpidcat. 
The word has various meanings, all 
derived from oixos in the sense of 
‘household’ or ‘family’. When used 
of persons it means ‘of one’s family’, 
strictly of kinsmen, sometimes loose- 
ly of familiar friends: then more 
generally ‘devoted to’, or even ‘ac- 
quainted with’, e.g. purocodias. In 
St Paul the word has a strong sense : 
see Gal. vi 10 padiora 8€ mpos rods 
oikeiovs ths miorews, and 1 Tim. v 8 
Tov idiwey Kal padtora oikeiwy (comp. 
%. 4 Tov ttov otkoy evoreBeir). 

20. émorxodSoundevres] The word oi- 
kos underlying oixeio: at once suggests 
to the Apostle one of his favourite 
metaphors. From the oékos, playing 
on its double meaning, he passes to 


the oixodouy. Apart from this sug- 
gestion the abruptness of the intro- 
duction of the metaphor, which is 
considerably elaborated, would be 
very strange. 

emt T@ Oevedio] This corresponds 
with the émi of the verb, which itself 
signifies ‘to build upon’: compare 
I Cor. iii 10 ws ocodos dpyiréxtov 
Oepedcov €Onxa, GAdros S€ ézorkodopel. 
In that passage Jesus Christ is said 
to be the deyéAvos. Here the meta- 
phor is differently handled; and the 
Christian teachers are not the build- 


‘ers, but themselves the foundation of 


the building. 

mpopntav] that is, prophets of the 
Christian Church. There can be no 
doubt that this is the Apostle’s mean- 
ing. Not only does the order ‘apostles 
and prophets’ point in this direction ; 
but a few verses lower down (iii 5) the 
phrase is repeated, and in iv 11 we 
have rovs pév amoorodous, Tos de 
mpopyras, Tovs d€ evayyehuoras, k.T.A., 
where Old Testament prophets are 
obviously out of the question. That 
Origen and Chrysostom suppose that 
the latter are here intended is a proof 
of the oblivion into which the activity 
of the prophets in the early Church 
had already fallen. 

dxpoyeuaiov] The word is taken 
from the Luxx of Isa, xxviii 16, where 
it comes in connexion with @epéAua. 
The Hebrew of this passage is ID’ 
Spi mp’ MoH IND YON pax ps3 
“DID, ‘I lay as a foundation in Sion 
a stone, a stone of proof, a precious 
corner stone of a founded foundation’. 
The uxx rendering is "Idov éyd épu- 
Badr\w cis Ta Geuédua Sevdy RiBov 
TOAVTEAT EKAEKTOY AKPOY@VLALOV EVTLLOY, 
eis ra Oepédca adrfs. It is plain that 


dxpoyevaiov corresponds to i135, 
whether we regard it as masculine 
II—2 


164 


are o 
(sc. AiBov), or as a neuter substantive ; 
see Hort’s note on 1 Pet. ii 6, where 
the passage is quoted. In Job 
XXXVili 6 Aidos ywmaios stands for 
M25 jAN: in Jer. xxviii (li) 26 Alos 
eis yoviay for 03D? {3N: and in Ps. 
CXVii (Cxvili) 22 eis kehadyy ywvias for 
mb wins, In the last of these places 
Symmachus had dxpoywvaios, as he 
had also for M7N3, ‘chapiter’, in 
2 Kings xxv 17. In Ps. exliii (exliv) 
12 Aquila had ws émyéna for M3, 
‘as corners’ or ‘ corner-stones’. 

*Akpoyomaios is not found again 
apart from allusions to the biblical 
passages. The Attic word is ywnaios, 
which is found in a series of inscrip- 
tions containing contracts for stones 
for the temple buildings at Eleusis 
(CIA iv 10546 ff.): eg. kat érépous 
(Aldous) ywuaiovs €& mod[av] a[avra- 
xet] Svo0 (1054¢, 1. 83): also, in an 
order for ra emikpava Tév Kidvey Trav 
eis TO mpooTdov To "Edevoin, it is 
stipulated that 12 are to be of certain 
dimensions, ra 5é ywraia dvo are to 
be of the same height, but of greater 
length and breadth (comp. Herm. 
Sim. ix 2 3 Kixr@ 8€ ris rvAns éory- 
kecoav trapOevor Saddexa* ai odv & ai eis 
Tas yovias éorynxviar évdokdrepai por 
eddxovy civac: they are spoken of in 
I5. I a8 foyupdrepa). In Dion. Hal. 
iii 22 the Pila Horatia in the Forum 
is spoken of as 7 yonata orvXis. 
But, of course, in none of these in- 
stances have we the corner-stone 
proper, which is an Eastern concep- 
tion. That even for a late Christian 
writer ywaios was the more natural 
word may be gathered from a com- 
ment of Theodore of Heraclea (Cor- 
derius in Psalm. exvii 22, p. 345), 
kata Tov ywuaiov Aidov To éxdrepov 
OVYKPOT@y TELxos. 

The earlier Latin rendering was 
‘angularis lapis’ (dyg, Ambrst., and 
so Jerome in some places) : the later, 
‘summus angularis lapis’, which 
has been followed in the A.V. (‘chief 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


BY a 


4 > \ / af > > | 
TATA OlKOOOMH TUVappoAoyoupuEry avEEL Els Vaov 


corner-stone’) both here and _ in 
I Pet. ii 6; though in Isa. xxviii 16 we 
have ‘corner stone’. Neither the 
Hebrew nor the Greek affords any 
justification for the rendering ‘ chief 
corner-stone’. *Axpoywuaios stands to 
youaios a8 én’ dkpas yevias stands to 
emt ywvias: the first part of the com- 
pound merely heightens the second. 

21. maca oikodopn] ‘all (the) build- 
ing’, not ‘each several building’. The 
difficulty which is presented by the 
absence of the article (see the note 
on various readings) is removed when 
we bear in mind that St Paul is 
speaking not of the building as com- 
pleted, ie. ‘the edifice’, but of the 
building as still ‘growing’ towards 
completion. The whole edifice could 
not be said to ‘grow’: but such an 
expression is legitimate enough if 
used of the work in process. This is 
the proper sense of ofxodou7, which is 
in its earlier usage an abstract noun, 
but like other abstract nouns has a 
tendency to become concrete, and is 
sometimes found, as here, in a kind 
of transitional sense. Our own word 
‘building’ has just the same range of 
meaning: and we might almost 
render aca oixodoun as ‘ all building 
that is carried on’. 

The word is condemned by Phry- 
nichus (Lobeck, p. 421; comp. pp. 
487 ff.) as non-Attic: olkodou7 ov 
héyeras avr’ avrov dé olkodounpa. 
The second part of this judgment 
proves that by the middle of the 
second century A.D. oixodoun was 
familiar in a concrete sense. The 
earliest instances of its use are how- 
ever abstract. Inthe Zabulae Heracl. 
(CISTI 645, i 146) we have és d€ ra 
éroixia xpyoovra. EvAots és Tay oiKo- 
Souav, A Laconian proverb quoted 
by Suidas (s. %. “Immos) ran: Oixodopna 
ae AdBo, x7... ‘May you take to 
building’—as one of the wasteful 
luxuries. In Aristot. Zih. Nic. v ra 


NI 


(p. 1137 0, 30) we have: domep kai ris\ 


II 23} 


AeoBias oixodopys 6 poriBdiwos Kavev, 
where the variant oixodopias gives 
the sense, and witnesses to the rarity 
of oixodozy, which is not elsewhere 
found in Aristotle. The concrete 
sense seems to appear first in passages 
where the plural is used, though even 
in some of these the meaning is 
rather ‘building-operations’ than 
‘edifices’ (eg. Plut. Lucull. 39 
oikoOopat moAvtedcis). In the xx the 
word occurs 17 times. With one or 
two possible exceptions, where the 
text is uncertain or the sense obscure, 
it never means ‘an edifice’, but 
always the operation of building. 

In St Paul’s epistles ofxodopu7} occurs 
eleven times (apart from the present 
epistle). Nine times it is used in the 
abstract sense of ‘edification’, a 
meaning which Lightfoot thinks owes 
its origin to the Apostle’s metaphor 
of the building of the Church (Notes 
on Epp. p. 191). The two remaining 
passages give a sense which is either 
abstract or transitional, but not 
strictly concrete. In 1 Cor. iii 9 the 
words Ocod yewpyiov, Geod oikodopun 
éore form the point of passage from 
the metaphor from agriculture to the 
metaphor from architecture. It can 
hardly be questioned that yedpy.ov 
here means ‘husbandry’, and not ‘a 
field’ (comp. Ecclus. xxvii 6 yewpyov 
Evdov exdaivee 6 Kapmos avrod): 
similarly oixodou7y is not the house as 
built, but the building regarded as in 
process : we might almost say ‘God’s 
architecture’ or ‘God’s_ structure’. 
The Latin rendering is clearly right : 
det agricultura, det aedificatio estis. 
The language of the other passage, 
2 Cor. v 1, is remarkable: oixodopny 
€x Geod E€xopev, olkiay dyeiporoinroy : 
not ‘an edifice coming from God’, 
but ‘a building proceeding from God 
as builder’. The sense of operation 
is strongly felt in the word: the 
result of the operation is afterwards 
expressed by oikiav dyetpomoinroy. 
In the present epistle the word comes 
again three times (iv 12, 16, 29), each 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


165 


time in the abstract sense. Apart 
from St Paul it is found in the New 
Testament only in Mark xiii 1, 2 
(Matt. xxiv 1), where we have the 
plural, of the buildings of the temple 
(iepov). This is the only certain 
instance of the concrete sense (of 
finished buildings) to be found in 
biblical Greek. 

In the elaborate metaphor of 
Ignatius, Ephes. 9, we have the 
abstract use in mponroiacpevor eis 
oixodoniy Oeod marpds, ‘prepared 
aforetime for God to build with’. So 
too in Hermas, again and again, of 
the building of the Tower (Vis. iii 2, 
etc.); but the plural is concrete in 
Sim. i 1. In Barn. Zp. xvi 1 the 
word is perhaps concrete, of the 
fabric of the temple as contrasted 
with God the builder of a spiritual 
temple (eis rv oikodopny 7Amioayv). 

The Latin rendering is ‘omnis 
aedijficatio’ (or ‘omnis structura’ 
Ambrst.), not ‘omne aedificium’. 
The Greek commentators, who for 
the most part read aca oikodopuy, have 
no conception that a plurality of 
edifices was intended. They do in- 
deed suggest that Jew and Gentile 
are portions of the building which are 
linked together (e7s piav oixodounv) by 
Christ the corner-stone. If, however, 
the Apostle had meant to convey this 
idea, he would certainly not have 
said aoa otkodouyn in the sense of 
macat ai oikodopuai, but possibly dudd- 
repat ai oixodopai, or something of the 
kind. 

The nearest representation in Eng- 
lish would perhaps be ‘all that is 
builded’, i.e. whatever building is 
being done. But this is practically 
the same as ‘all the building’, which 
may accordingly be retained, though 
the words have the disadvantage of 
being ambiguous if they are severed 
from their context. If we allow our- 
selves a like freedom with St Paul in 
the interweaving of his two metaphors, 
we may construct an analogous 
sentence thus: ev 6 aca avénots 


166 


v4 5 5) / 222 a 
ayiov €v kuplw, “év w Ka 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


{II 22—IIlI 1 


€ 


ond ~ 3 
t Upets cuvoikodopmetabe ets 


ie) 4 Pol Pod 7 
KaTounTnpiov Tov Oeov év mvevpuatt. 


Ti. 


ovvapporoyoupern oikodopetrat eis TGpa 
tédevov ev xupio: this would be 
fairly rendered as ‘in whom all the 
growth is builded’, etc.; nor should 
we expect in such a case maca 7 
avénots. 

cvvappodoyoupern| This compound 
is not found again apart from St Paul. 
In iv 16 he applies it to the structure 
of the body. There is some authority 
in other writers for dppodoyeiv. For 
the meaning see the detached note. 

avée.} Compare Col. ii 19 av&e 
Thy avénow Tov beod. Both avéo and 
avéavw are Attic forms of the present. 
The intransitive use of the active is 
not found before Aristotle. It pre- 
vails in the New Testament, though 
we have the transitive use in 1 Cor. 
iii 6 f., 2 Cor. ix Io, 

22. kxaroixntnpiv| In the New 
Testament this word comes again 
only in Apoc. xviii 2 xarounrnpioy 
Saipovier (comp. Jer. ix 11 eis Katouxn- 
typiov Spaxovray). It is found in the 
Lxx, together with xaroxia, karoixnots 
and xarovxecia, for a habitation of any 
sort : but in a considerable group of 
passages it is used of the Divine 
dwelling-place, whether that is con- 
ceived of as on earth or in heaven. 
Thus the phrase éroiwov Karouxnrnpidy 
cov comes in Exod. xv 17, and three 
times in Solomon’s prayer (1 Kings 
viii, 2 Chron. vi): comp Ps. xxxii 
(xxxili) 14. These Old Testament 
associations fitted it to stand as the 
climax of the present passage. 

é€v mvevpart] The Gentiles are builded 
along with the Jews to form a dwell- 
ing-place for God ‘in (the) Spirit’. 
This stands in contrast with their 
separation one from the other ‘in 
(the) flesh’, on which stress is laid at 
the outset of this passage, 7. 11 rd 
eOvn €v capkl...ris Aeyouerns Teptropis 
€v OapKi. 


\ lon / lo 
*TovTov yapw éyw TlatAos 6 Séopuos TOU 


III. i—7. ‘All this impels me 
afresh to pray for you. And who am I, 
that I should so pray? Paul, the 
prisoner of the Christ, His prisoner 
for you—you Gentiles. You must 
have heard of my peculiar task, of the 
dispensation of that grace of God 
which has been given me to bring to 
you. The Secret has been disclosed 
to me by the great Revealer. I have 
already said something of it—enough 
to let you see that I have knowledge 
of the Secret of the Christ. Of old 
men knew it not: now it has been 
unveiled to the apostles and prophets 
of the holy people. The Spirit has 
revealed to their spirit the new ex- 
tension of privilege. The Gentiles are 
co-heirs, concorporate, co-partakers of 
the Promise. This new position has 
become theirs in Christ Jesus through 
the Gospel which I was appointed to 
serve, in accordance with the gift of 
that grace, of which I have spoken, 
which has been given to me in all the 
fulness of God’s power,’ 

I. Tovrov yap] Theactual phrase 
occurs again only in v 14, where it 
marks the resumption of this sentence, 
and in Tit.i5. We have ov ydpuy in 
Luke vii 47, and ydpuv rivos in 1 John 
iii 12, In the Old Testament we 
find rovrov (yap) xdapw in Prov. 
xvii 17, 1 Macc. xii 45, xiii 4. 

éy® IlatAos] For the emphatic 
introduction of the personal name 
compare 1 Thess. ii 18, 2 Cor. x 1, 
Col. i 23; and especially Gal. v 2. In 
the first three instances other names 
have been joined with St Paul’s in 
the opening salutation of the epistle : 
but this is not the case in the Epistle 
to the Galatians or in the present 
epistle. 

6 S€opios rod yxpiotod “Incov| In 
Philem. 1 and 9 we have Sdé€opuos 
Xpiorod “Incod, and in 2 Tim. i 8 roy 


\ 


III 2—4] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


167 


4 lanl \ Cal lat ~ 5) 
xpiatou “Incov virep vuwv Tov Ebvwev,—*el ye rjKoVoaTeE 


\ > / la 7 n~ ro ~ 
THV OLKOVOMLav THS YapLTOS ToU Oeov. Tis dobeEions uot 


> Wa Co e/ \ iA ? 
eis Upas, %0TL KaTa arokaduvyw éyvwpicOn por TO 


/ \ U 2 > \ ¢ 
puctyplov, Kabws mpoeypavva év ONiyw, *rpds 6 SUvacbe 


décpioy avrod (sc. Tod Kuplov rpar). 
Below, in ivy 1, the expression is 
different, ¢yd 6 déopsos ev Kupio. 

Umép vpav tov é6vev] So in ii 11, 
Uueis ta €Om. The expression is 
intentionally emphatic. His cham- 
pionship of the equal position of the 
Gentiles was the true cause of his 
imprisonment. Compare v. 13 « 
tais Odivveciv pou vmép var, tris €ariv 
Sofa tyar. 

2. €t ye jxovcare| The practical 
effect of this clause is to throw new 
emphasis on the words immediately 
preceding. ‘It is on your behalf 
(rep vuav) that I am a prisoner—as 
you must know, if indeed you have 
heard of my special mission to you 
(els vpas)’, We have a close parallel 
in iv 21 ef ye avrov neovoare k.T-X. 
The Apostle’s language does not 
imply a doubt as to whether they had 
heard of his mission: it does imply 
that some at least among them had 
only heard, and had no_ personal 
acquaintance with himself. 

oikovopiay| See the note on i 10; 
and compare 7) oixovopia rod pvotnpiov, 
below in v. 9. In Col. i 25 we have 
kaTa THY oikovoylay Tou Oeov tHv Soei- 
ody po. els vuas, mAnpooat Tov Adyov 
Tov Oeod, TO puornpiov «tA. In all 
these passages God is 6 oikovopay: so 
that they are not parallel to 1 Cor. 
ix 17 olxovopiay weriorevpat, where 
the Apostle himself is the oixovoyos 
(comp. 1 Cor. iv I, 2). 

xapiros| For the use of this word 
in connexion with St Paul’s mission 
to the Gentiles, and in particular for 
the combination 7 yapis 7 Sobciod por 
(1 Cor. iii 10, Gal. ii 9, Rom. xii 3, 
XV 15, Eph. iii 7), see the detached note 
on xapis. 

3. Kara 


aroxaduy| Compare 


Gal. ii 2, and the more striking 
parallel in Rom. xvi 25 xara dzokd- 
Aupw pvotnpiov «7A. "Amokddvwis 
is the natural correlative of puar7jpior, 
on which see the detached note. 

éyvopicbn| Compare vv. 5,10. The 
word comes, in connexion with ro 
pvotnptov, in Rom, xvi 26, Eph. i 9, 
vi 19, Col. i 27. 

mpo¢ypaya| This is the ‘ epistolary 
aorist’, which in English is repre- 
sented by the perfect. For the 
temporal force of the preposition in 
this verb, compare Rom. xv 4 6ca 
yap mpoeypapy. Here, however, the 
meaning is scarcely more than that of 
éypaya: ‘I have written already’ 
(not ‘aforetime’), The technical 
sense of rpoypadew found in Gal. iii 1 
does not seem suitable to this context. 

ev oAly@| ‘in a few words’: more 
exactly, ‘in brief compass’, or, as we 
say, ‘in brief’. The only other New 
Testament passage in which the 
phrase occurs is Acts xxvi 28f. The 
phrase is perhaps most frequently 
used of time; as in Wisd. iv 13 


Tehewels ev dAly@ émANpwce Xpovous 


paxpovs. Aristotle, however, Lhet. 
lii II (p. 14125, 20), in discussing 
pithy sayings, says that their virtue 
consists in brevity and antithesis, and 
adds 9 paénows dia pev TO avrixeioba 
paddor, dia Se rd ev Odlyp Oarrov 
yiveru. A useful illustration is cited 
by Wetstein from Eustathius in J/. 
ii, p. 339, 18, ovr@ pev 4 ‘OpnpiKy év 
drXlye Siavecddynra ioropiay ra dé 
KaTa pépos avtns TovavTa. 

4. mpos 6] that is, ‘looking to 
which’, ‘having regard whereunto’ ; 
and so ‘judging whereby’: but the 
expression is unusual. The force of the 
preposition receives some illustration 
from 2 Cor. V I0 iva xopionrat éxaoros 


168 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[IIL 5, 6 


~ \ } lé > - if 

AVAYWWOKOVTES VOHTaL THY TUVETLY LOU EV TH MUaTNPLY 

~ ~ A V4 ~ ; tf ~ 

TOU xpurTov, 50 érépais yeveats ovK éyvwpia@y ois 
P= n ~ / ~ et 7 

viois Tav avOpwrwy ws viv drexadvpOy Tots aryiols 


> / > ~ \ / > / 6 > 
aTooTONOI avUTOU Kal TpoPnT ats €v Wvevuatt, ~élval 


ra dit rod odpatros mpos a empaker, 
x.t.A, The participle dvaywackorres 
seems to be thrown in epexegetically. 
Judging by what he has already 
written, they can, as they read, per- 
ceive that he has a true grasp of 
the Divine purpose, and accordingly, 
as he hints, a true claim to inter- 
pret it. 

The Latin rendering ‘prout potestis 
legentes tntelligere’, i.e. ‘so far as ye 
are able...to understand’, has much 
in its favour. This is also the inter- 
pretation of most, if not all, of the 
Greek commentators: cuveyerpyoato 
tiv SidacKxadiavy. mpos dep éxwpovy 
(Severian, caten. ad loc.) «But it 
makes dvaywodoxovres Somewhat more 
difficult, unless we press it to mean 
‘by reading only’. 

The suggestion that dvaywockovres 
may refer to the reading of the pro- 
phetic parts of the Old Testament in 
the light of (xpos 6) what the Apostle 
has written (Hort, Romans and 
Ephesians, pp. 150f.) is beset with 
difficulties: for (1) where dvaywo- 
oxew is used of the Old Testament 
scriptures, the reference is made clear 
by the context, and not left to be 
gathered from the word itself; 1 Tim. 
iv. 13 mpdcexe TH dvayveces cannot be 
proved to refer solely to the public 
reading of the Old Testament; (2) 
the same verb is quite naturally used 
of the reading of Apostolic writings, 
Acts xv 31, 1 Thess. v 27, Col. iv 16, 
Apoc. i 3: (3) the close proximity of 
mpotypaya suggests that what they 
are spoken of as reading is what he 
has written : (4) in the whole context 
Old Testament revelation falls for the 
moment out of sight (see especially 


®. 5), and the newness of the message 
is insisted on. 


Thy cvveciv pov év x.t.r.] A close 
parallel is found in 1 (3) Esdr.i 31 rijs 
cuvécews avTov €vy Te voum Kupiov. 
In the Lxx ouméva év is a frequent 
construction: but it is a mere repro- 
duction of a Hebrew idiom, and we 
need not look to it for the explana- 
tion of our present phrase. For the 
omission of the article before év ro 
puotnpio, see the note on i I5. 

5. €répas yeveais] ‘in other gene- 
rations’, the dative of time; compare 
Rom. xvi 25 xpovos aiwviow. Teved 
is used as a subdivision of aidv, and 
the two words are sometimes brought 
into combination for the sake of 
emphasis, as in iii 21 and Col. i 26. 
The rendering ‘ to other generations’ 
is excluded by the fact that éeyvwpic6n 
is followed by rots viois trav avOpdrear. 

Tois viois tov avépomev| It is 
remarkable that this well-known He- 
braism, frequent in the Lxx, occurs 
again but once in the New Testament, 
viz. in Mark iii 28 (in Matt. xii 31 
this becomes simply rots dv@perrois). 
The special and restricted use of the 
phrase 06 vids rov dvOpwmrov may 
account for the general avoidance of 
the idiom, which however is regularly 
recalled by the Syriac versions in 
their rendering of dv@pamo. (Matt. 
Vv. 19, et passim). 

rois dyiows dmocroAos x7.A.] In 
the parallel passage, Col. i 26, we 
have viv S€ édavepoOn trois ayios 
airov, ois nOeAncev 6 Oeds yrapicoa, 
x7.A. The difference is in part at 
least accounted for by the prominent 
mention of ‘ apostles and prophets’ in 
the immediately preceding section 
(ii 20). 

év mvevpari] See ii 22, v 18 and vi 


- 18, and the notes in these places. 


III 7—9] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


169 


a eae / \ A ~ 
Ta €Ovn cuvKAnpovoua Kal GUYT wpa Kal CUVMETOXA THs 
> yA > X ~ | ~ » A ~ > a 9 @ 
errayyenias €v Xpiot@ "Inood dia Tov evayyediov, 708 
> / tg \ \ \ nw / land 
éyernOnv Ovakovos KaTa THv SwpEeay Tis XaptTos Tov 

35 54 , A A / 

Geov ths Soleions pot KaTa THY évepryeltay THS OuvvapLEws 
5) ‘al S22 \ ro > / / ec , r) , 
avTOU-— Euol TH éAaYLTTOTEDW TavTwWY ayiwy édoOn 

¢ , J ~ sf , \ 

1 xXapis avtTy—Tots EOverw evayyerNicacba TO aveg- 
i é ~ ~ \ 

ixvlaaTov mOUTOS TOU xpiOTOU, %Kal wTica Tis 74 


9. pwrica]+mdvras. 


6. ovvkdnpovopa «.t.dA.] Of the 
three compounds two are rare (cuveAn- 
povoynos, Rom. viii 17, Heb, xi. 9, 1 
Pet. iii 7, Philo: guvpéroxos, v. 7, 
Aristotle and Josephus). The third 
(cvyo@pos) was perhaps formed by 
St Paul for this occasion. Aristotle’s 
ovvoewparoro.eiy, if it implied an adjec- 
tive at all, would imply cuvodparos 
(but it is probably a compound of 
ody and owparoroceiv). In later Greek 
dowpos, €vawpos are found side by side 
with dowparos, évodparos. 

7. eyemOnv Siaxovos| Compare 
Col. i 23, 25, where however we have 
eyevounv, which is read by some MSS 
here. The two forms of the aorist 
are interchangeable in the Lxx and 
in the New Testament, as in the later 
Greek writers generally. 

As the ministration spoken of in 
each of these passages is that special 
ministration to the Gentiles which 
was committed to St Paul, and as the 
article is naturally omitted with the 
predicate, we may fairly render: 
‘whereof I was made minister’ (or 
even ‘the minister’). But it is not 
necessary to depart from the familiar 
rendering ‘a minister’, 

xaptros...evépyecavy] See the notes 
on @. 2 and i 19 respectively. 

8—13. ‘Yes, to me this grace has 
been given—to me, the meanest 
member of the holy people—that I 
should be the one to bring to the 
Gentiles the tidings of the inexplor- 
able wealth of the Christ: that I 

should publish the plan of God’s 


eternal working, the Secret of the 
Creator of the universe: that not 
man only, but all the potencies of the 
unseen world might learn through the 
Church new lessons of the very varied 
wisdom of God—learn that one pur- 
pose runs through the ages of eter- 
nity, a purpose which God _ has 
formed in the Christ, even in Jesus 
our Lord, in whom we have our bold 
access to God. So lose not heart, I 
pray you, because I suffer in so great 
a cause. My pain is your glory’. 

8. €Aaxiororépo| Wetstein ad loc. 
has collected examples of heightened 
forms of the comparative and super- 
lative. The most recent list is that 
of Jannaris, Wistorical Greek Gram- 
mar,§ 506. For the most part they 
are doubled comparatives or doubled 
superlatives: but Jannaris_ cites 
peytororepos from Gr. Pap. Br. Mus, 
134, 49 (cent. I—II A.D.). 

rois €Oveow evayyedicacba| The 
order of the words throws the 
emphasis on trois ¢éveow. St Paul’s 
Gospel (ro evayyéAov pov, seeespecially 
Rom. xvi 25) is the Gospel of God’s 
grace to the Gentiles. 

dve&tyviaarov] Compare Rom. xi 33 
*Q Babos mdovrov...dveEtxviacrot ai 
6501 avrov. The only parallels seem 
to be Job v9, ix 10, xxxiv 24, where 
“PM jy’ is so rendered by the Lxx, 
who in that book employ iyvos for 
spn. 

mAovros| Apart from 1 Tim. vi 17, 
no instance of wAovros in the sense of 
material wealth is to be found in St 


170 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[III 10 


rol / a / 3 \ es 
oikovoula TOU PUaTNpLOV TOU a7TOKEKpUUMEVOU ATO THY 
aiwvwv ev TO Oew TH Ta TavTa KTloavTt, “iva yvw- 
é 


~ ~~ ~ -~ J ~~ 
pio Oi vuy Tais apyats Kal Tals €£ova tats é€v Tols €7rou- 
é 


\ la p) / 
paviots Ola THS €KKANT Las 


Paul’s writings. On the other hand, 
his figurative use of the word has no 
parallel in the rest of the Greek Bible. 
Of fourteen instances of it, five occur 
in this epistle. In the uses of the 
derivates mAovo.os, mAovoiws, mAov- 
reiv, tAovri¢ew, the same rule will be 
found to hold, though there are some 
interesting exceptions. 

9. dhorioa tis 7 K7.A.] ‘to bring 
to light what is the dispensation’. 
Compare Col. i 27 yrwpica ti rd 
mAovros K.T.A., Where the whole con- 
text is parallel to the present passage. 
Seorifew is a natural word for the 
public disclosure of what has been 
kept secret: see Polyb, xxx 8 I 
ereita O€ TOY ypaypdaT@v Eak@KoT@y Kal 
nepaticpevov: also Suidas @wrifew- 
airtatikn: eis pas ayew, eLayyedrew, 
followed by a quotation in which 
occur the words gerifew rd xara Thy 
evroknyv amoppnrov. Compare I Cor. 
iv 5 orice ra kpumta Tov cKOrTous, 
and 2 Tim. i 10 dericavros d€ fwnv 
kal apOapciav (with the context). 

There is considerable authority (see 
the note on various readings) for the 
addition of mayvras after qorica.. 
The construction thus gained is like 
that in Judg. xiii 8(A text), poricdro 
pas Ti Toujcoper TH radapio (B has 
ovvBiBacdrw). But the sense given to 
porica.— to instruct’ instead of ‘to 
publish’—is less appropriate to the 
present context; moreover the inser- 
tion of zavras lessens the force of the 
emphatic rois €6vecw. The change was 
probably a grammatical one, due to 
the desire for an expressed accusative: 
John i 9, rd das...6 porites mavra ay- 
6pw7rov, is no true parallel, but it may 
have influenced the reading here. 

ard tay aidvev| Compare Col. i 26 
TO pvoTnpiov TO dmroKexpuppévov dad 


/ rl 
1) ToAvTrolKiAos codia Tov 


TOv aidvey Kat aro Tay yeveav: Rom. 
Xvi 25 pvornplov ypovos aiwviors 
ceotynuévov: I Cor. ii 7 Geod codiay 
év pvotnplo, THY amokexpuppéerny, Hv 
Tpow@picev 0 Geds mpd Tavaidvev. The 
phrase avo rév aiover is the converse 
of the more frequent eis rovs aidvas : 
comp. az aidvos, Luke i 70, Acts 
iii 21, xv 183 azo Tod aidvos kai eis 
rov aiava, Ps, xl (xli) 14, etc. The 
meaning is that ‘from eternity until 
now’ the mystery has been hidden. 

xticavrt| The addition in the later 
MSS of 8:4 *Inood Xpicrod points toa 
failure to understand the propriety of 
the simple mention of creation in this 
context. The true text hints that the 
purpose of God was involved in cre- 
ation itself. 

10. iva yvwpic6;| Compare i 9 
yropicas nuiv TO pvotnpiov, ili 3 
eyvopicbn pot, 5 €répais yeveais ovK 
eyvwpicbn, Vi 19 év mappycia yvepioa. 
TO pvotnpiov. The rejection of the 
gloss mavras (see on v.9) leaves us the 
more free to take this clause closely 
with @eorica: ‘to publish what from 
eternity has been hidden, in order 
that now what has hitherto been 
impossible of comprehension may be 
made known throughout the widest 
sphere.’ 

apyais...€moupavios| See the notes 
on i 21, and the exposition pp. 2of. 

dua THs exkAnoias]| Compare ev ry 
exxAnaia below, 2% 21. 

moAvroikisos| The word is found 
in Greek poetry in the literal sense of 
‘very-varied’; Eur. Iph. in Taur. 
1149, of robes; Eubulus ap. Athen. 
Xv 24, p. 679d orépavoy rodvtoikidov 
avééov: also, figuratively, in the 
Orphic hymns vi 11 (redern), lxi 4 
(Adyos). In Iren. 1 iv 1 (Mass. p. 19) 
we have madous ... moAvpepots kal 


= 


\ 


of 
) 


III 11] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


171 


rs A Vf ~ bat \ / > ~ 
Geov, “kata mpolecw Taev aiwvey iv éroincev év TW 


moAvrotkitov vrapyovros. An echo of 
the word is heard in 1 Pet. iv 10 
moins xapitos Oeov. 

II. kata mpobeowv] This expression 
occurs adverbially in Rom. viii 28 
Tols Kata mpddecw KAntois ovow. It 
there signifies ‘in accordance with 
deliberate purpose’, on the part, that 
is, of Him who has called: the mean- 
ing is made clear by the words which 
follow (ért ovs mpoéyvm x.7.A.) and 
by the subsequent phrase of ix 11 
7) Kat’ éexXoyhv mpobects Tov Ged, ‘the 
purpose of God which works by elec- 
tion’. 

In Aristotle mpodeors is a technical 
term for the setting out of the topic 
of a treatise or speech: thus we have 
the four divisions (Rhet. iii 13, p. 
14146, 8) mpooimiov, mpdbecis, miotis, 
eridoyos, ‘ prelude, proposition, proof, 
peroration’. In Polybius rpdGeors is 
of frequent occurrence in the sense of 
a deliberate plan or scheme; and this 
sense is found in 2 and 3 Maccabees; 
comp. Symm., Ps. ix 38 (x 17), in- 
terpr. al., Ps. exlv (exlvi) 4. In Polyb. 
xii 11 6 we have the actual adverbial 
phrase, of lying ‘deliberately’, xara 
mpodeow epevonervo. In no writer 
previous to St Paul does it appear to 
be used of the Divine purpose or plan. 

tov aiovev|] The addition of the 
defining genitive destroys only to a 
certain extent the adverbial character 
of the expression. The result is diffi- 
cult to express in English: neither 
‘according to the purpose of the ages’ 
(which would strictly presuppose cara 
THY mpobcow Tav aidvwy), nor ‘accord- 
ing to a purpose of the ages’, gives 
the exact shade of meaning, which is 
rather ‘in accordance with deliberate 
purpose, and that purpose not new, 
but running through the whole of 
eternity’. This construction is frequent 
in St Paul’s writings. Thus we have 
kar’ évépyecay (iv 16) and kar’ évépyevay 
Tov Sarava (2 Thess. ii 9), on which see 
below in the detached note on évepyeir. 


Again, we have kar’ émrayny (1 Cor. 
vii 6, 2 Cor. viii 8) and kar’ émirayhy 
Tov aiwviov Geov (Rom. xvi 26): also 
kat éxNoyyv (Rom. ix 11) and kar’ 
exdoyny xaptros (Rom. xi5). Compare 
further Rom. ii 7, xvi 5, 25, Phil. iii 
6: also in this epistle, i 11 mpoopi- 
obévres Kata mpodecw tov Tra mavra 
EvepyouvTos k.T.A. 

nv éroinoev] These words involve a 
serious difficulty. If they are taken 
as equivalent to qv mpoébero (comp. i 
10), We suppose a breach of the rule 
by which the resolution of such verbs 
is made with soveicda, not with 
motetv. No other instance of this can 
be found in St Paul, while we have 
on the contrary in this epistle, for 
example, pveiay moeicba (i 16) and 
avénow moioba (iv 16). A phrase 
like 6&npa sroveiv, which is sometimes 
cited, is obviously not parallel, as it is 
not a resolution of Oédew. 

It was probably this difficulty, rather 
than the omission of the article before 
mpodectv, that led early interpreters 
to regard xara mpobeow Trav aidvey as 
a semi-adverbial phrase parentheti- 
cally introduced, and to take nv ézoi- 
noev as referring to codia. Jerome 
so interprets, though he mentions the 
possibility of a reference either to 
éxkAnolas or to mpddeow. It is pro- 
bable that here, as so often, he is 
reproducing the view of Origen. But 
the Old Latin version, which he 
follows in the text, also interpreted 
so: ‘secundum propositum seculorum, 
quam fecit’: a rendering which rules 
out the connexion mpodeow...jv. So 
too the translator of Theodore (MSS, 
non ed.), but of Theodore’s own view 
we have no evidence. Theophylact 
and Euthymius Zigabenus expressly 
refer jv to codiav. Chrysostom’s text 
at this point is in some confusion : 
but he suggests, if he did not actually 
read, aidvey dy éroinaey (comp. Heb. 
i 2 8 od Kat émoincey tovs aldvas). 
The Vulgate (so too Victorinus) sub- 


172 


oo tan Pal , e o~ 3 
xpiatw “Inoov Tw Kupilw nuwV, “EV w 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[III 12 


fe; 


Exouev THY Tap- 


, Sn ties , 
pnoiav Kal mpocaywyny év meroWnoe dia THs TicTEWSs 


stitutes praefinitionem for proposi- 
twm, and thus restores the ambiguity 
of the original, which the simpler 
change of guod for guam would have 
avoided. Itis noticeable that Jerome 
had suggested propositio as an alter- 
native rendering of mpodeois. The 
absence of guam fecit from Ambrosi- 
aster’s text points to another attempt 
to get rid of the difficulty. 

This construction, however, is ex- 
ceedingly harsh, and it presents us with 
the phrase codiav maeiv, which seems 
to have no parallel. Another way 
out of the difficulty has met with more 
favour in recent times; namely, to 
take éroincev in the sense of ‘wrought 
out’. But it may be doubted whether 
mpoGeow movetvy could bear such a 
meaning: we should certainly have 
expected a stronger verb such as 
emiTedew OF exmAnpoiy. This view, 
indeed, seems at first sight to be 
favoured by the full title given to 
Christ, and the relative clause which 
follows it. But a closer examination 
shews that the title itself is an almost 
unique combination. In Rom. vi 23, 
viii 39, 1 Cor. xv 31, (Phil. iii 8) we 
have Xpiords “Incods 6 xdpios fur 
(uov), in itself an uncommon order: 
but no article is prefixed to Xpiorés. 
Only in Col. ii 6 have we an exact 
parallel, as oty mapeddBere tov ypioréy 
"Inaoby roy kvpiov, k.7.A.; where Light- 
foot punctuates afier ypiordy and 
renders ‘the Christ, even Jesus the 
Lord’, Accordingly, in the present 
passage, even if we are unwilling to 
press the distinction in an English 
rendering, we may feel that an exact 
observation of the Greek weakens the 
force of the argument derived from 
the fulness of the title, and leaves us 
free to accept an interpretation which 
regards éroinoev as referring to the 
formation of the eternal purpose in 
the Christ. 


On the whole it is preferable to 
suppose that the Apostle is referring 
to the original formation of the pur- 
pose, and not to its subsequent working 
out in history. We may even doubt 
whether here he would have used the 
past tense, if he had been speaking of 
its realisation. 

Instances may be found in the 
Lxx and in New Testament writers 
other than St Paul, in which zoveiv is 
used where we should expect rovei- 
oOa : comp. Isa. xxix 15, xxx 1, BovAny 
movetv, and see Blass NV. 7. Gram. § 53. 
3 and Jannaris Hist. Gr. Gram. § 
1484. Further, we may remember 
that zoveiy in biblical literature often 
has a strong sense, derived from the 
Hebrew, in reference to creative acts 
of God (comp. ii 10). The framing 
of the Purpose in the Christ may be 
regarded as the initial act of creation, 
and the word éoincev may be not in- 
appropriately applied to it. In other 
words rpdécow éroincey is a stronger 
form of expression than mpdéeow 
erotnoaro, Which is the mere equivalent 
of mpoéGero: and it suggests that ‘the 
purpose of the ages,’ like the ages 
themselves (Heb. i 2), has been called 
into existence by a Divine creative 
act. 

With this passage, and indeed with 
the whole of this section, should be 
compared 2 Tim. i 8—12, where there 
are striking parallels of language and 
of thought, which are the more notice- 
able in the absence of any explicit 
reference to the Gentiles. 

12, THv wappyoiay k.t.A.] Compare 
ii 18. For the meanings of rappncia 
see Lightfoot on Col.ii15. Ordinarily 
it is used of ‘boldness’ in relation to 
men: here it is of the attitude of man 
to God: there seems to be no other 
example of this use in St Paul; but 
see Heb. iii 6, iv 16, x 19, 35, 1 John 
ii 28, iii 21, iv 17, v 14. 


III 13, 14] 


QuUTOU. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


173 


3010 aiTou [La ie wv év Tats ONL 
‘TOUMaL <upas> un évKakely év Tais OXi- 


/ € \ € lon 4 > \ } / € a“ 
Weciv wou vmép vuor, its étiv 0€a vor. 
/ / / \ if / 
“Tovrov xapw KaurTw Tad yovaTa jou Tpos TOV 


mero.Onoe.| The word is used six 
times by St Paul, but is found nowhere 
else in the New Testament, and but 
once in the Lxx. 

avrov| Compare Mark xi 22 éyere 
riotw Oeod, Rom. iii 22, 26, Gal. ii 16, 
iii 22, Phil. iii 9, in all of which cases 
however ziovis is without the article. 
In James ii 1, Apoc. ii 13, xiv 12 the 
article is prefixed, but the meaning is 
different. Here ris may be regarded 
as parallel to rjv before rappyciar: so 
that the meaning would be ‘our faith 
in Him’, 

13. atrovpat py eévxaxeiv]| Does 
this mean (1) ‘I pray that I may not 
lose heart’, or (2) ‘I pray that you 
may not lose heart’, or (3) ‘I ask you 
not to lose heart’? Whichever inter- 
pretation is adopted, the omission of 
the subject of éveaxeiy is a serious 
difficulty. Theodore gives the first 
interpretation, which may plead in 
its favour that the subject of the 
second verb is most naturally supplied 
from the first, and that, as the suffer- 
ings are St Paul’s, it is he who needs 
to guard against discouragement. But 
the absolute use of airotpat, as ‘I ask 
of God, where prayer has not been 
already spoken of, seems unjustifiable: 
and that the Apostle should here 
interpose such a prayer for himself 
is exceedingly improbable, especially 
when his language elsewhere with 
regard to sufferings is considered, e.g. 
in Col. i 24. Origen at first offers 
this interpretation, but passes on to 
plead for the second as more agree- 
able to the context. Jerome, who 
read in his Latin ‘peto ne deficiatis,’ 
points out that the Greek may mean 
‘peto ne deficiam,’ and then repro- 
duces the comments of Origen. 

The third interpretation is by far 
the most satisfactory : but we sadly 
miss the accusative vas. It is pro- 


bable that it has been lost by homoco- 
teleuton, ymac having fallen out 
after the -ymai of arroymai: compare 
Gal. iv 11, where in several MSS ymac 
has been dropped after moBoymai. I 
have accordingly inserted spas pro- 
visionally in the text. 

evcaxeiv] ‘lose heart’: from xakéds 
in the sense of ‘cowardly’. On the 
form of this word, éykaxeiy (évk-) or 
exkaxeiv, see Lightfoot on 2 Thess. iii 
13 (Notes on Epp. p. 132). It occurs 
five times in St Paul’s epistles: else- 
where in the New Testament it is 
found only in Luke xviii 1. In 2 Cor. 
iv 16 it is, as here, followed by a 
reference to 6 écw dvOpwmos in the 
immediate context. This connexion 
of thought confirms the view that the 
subject of évcaxeiv here is the readers 
of the epistle, for whom the Apostle 
goes on to pray that. they may be 
‘strengthened in the inward man’, 

14—19. ‘All this, I repeat, im- 
pels me afresh to prayer. In the 
lowliest attitude of reverence I pros- 
trate myself before Him, to whom 
every knee shall bow—before the 
Father from whom all fatherhood 
everywhere derives its name. I ask 
the Father to give you, through the 
Spirit’s working on your spiritual 
nature, an inward might—the very 
indwelling of the Christ in your hearts, 
realised through faith, consummated 
in love. I pray that your roots may 
be struck deep, your foundations laid 
secure, that so you may have strength 
enough to claim your share in the 
knowledge which belongs to the holy 
people: to comprehend the full mea- 
sures of the Divine purpose; to know 
—though it is beyond all knowledge 
—the love of Christ; and so to attain 
to the Divine completeness, to be 
filled unto all the fulness of God’. 

14. Tovrov yap] The repetition 


174 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[III 1s 


* oo \ ~ ee \ ~ 
marépa, “ef ov Tara TaTpLa EV OUpavols Kal ETL YynS 


of this phrase marks the close con- 
nexion of vv. 1 and 14,and shews that 
what has intervened is a digression. 

kaunt@ x.7.A.] The usual phrase for 
‘kneeling’ in the New Testament is 
Geis ra yovara. The present phrase is 
found again only in a quotation from 
1 Kings xix 18 in Rom. xi 4; in a 
quotation from Isa. xlv 23, dru époi 
capper wav yoru, in Rom. xiv 11; and 
in Phil. ii 10, a év r@ dydpare “Incov 
nav yovv kauwn, an allusion to the 
same passage of Isaiah. 

natépa] ‘The insertion after this 
word of rov xupiou jpav Incot Xpiorod 
is a mischievous gloss, which obscures 
the intimate connexion between the 
absolute warnp and vaca marpia. It 
is absent from S*ABCP. 

I5. aca matpia| Tarpea denotes 
a group of persons united by descent 
from a common father or, more gene- 
rally, a common ancestor. It has thus 
the narrower meaning of ‘family’ or 
the wider meaning of ‘tribe’. It is 
exceedingly common in the genea- 
logical passages of the Lxx, where it 
often stands in connexion with oikos 
and dvA7n. St Paul plays on the deri- 
vation of the word: zarpid is derived 
from marnp: every rarpza, in the visible 
or the invisible world, is ultimately 
named from the one true Father (6 
matnp), the source of all fatherhood. 

The literal rendering is ‘every 
family’; but the point of the passage 
cannot be given in English without 
a paraphrase. The Latin rendering 
‘omnis paternitas’ seems to be a bold 
effort in this direction ; for paterni- 
tas, like ‘fatherhood’ in English, is 
an abstract term and does not appear 
to be used in the sense of ‘a family’. 
It is true that Jerome (ad loc. and 
ade. Helvid. 14), in order to bring 
out a parallel, renders warprai of the 
LXX by paternitates: but in his own 
version (Numb. i 2, etc.) he does not 
introduce the word, nor does it occur 
as a rendering of zarpid in the Latin 


version of the Lxx. Patria is occa- 
sionally so used, and is found also in 
a quotation of our present passage 
in the metrical treatise [Tert.] adv. 
Marcionem iv 35. 

Similarly the rendering of the 
Peshito ~hammaxt As must 
mean ‘all fatherhood’: comp. sax. 
<ham=aéa ‘the name of father- 
hood’ in Aphrahat (Wright 472 f.). 
The Latin and Syriac versions there- 
fore warrant us in rendering the pas- 
sage in English as ‘the Father of 
whom all fatherhood...is named’. 

On the teaching of the passage it 
is worth while to compare Athanasius 
Orat. contra Arian. i 23 od yap 6 bes 
avOpwrov pipeirac’ ddd\a paddov oi 
avOpwrot dia Tov Oeov, kupiws Kal povoy 
adnOas ovra marépa Tov éavTov viod, kal 
avtol matépes wvopacOncayv trav idiwv 
rexvav’ €& avTov yap maca marpia ev 
ovpayois kal éml ys ovopaterar: and 
Severian ad loc. (Cramer Caten. vi 159) 
TO Ovopa Tov maTpos ovK ad nyuov 
avndOev dv, GAN avabev 7rOev eis nuas, 
dnAovore Os Gvoet dy Kat ovK dvoparte 
pOvov. 

The difficulty supposed to exist in 
St Paul’s speaking of ‘families’ in 
heaven may have led to the mistrans- 
lation of the A.V. ‘the whole family,’ 
The same difficulty led Theodore to 
adopt (perhaps to invent) the reading 
darpia (so the Paris codex: the form 
is found both in Inscrr. and MSS for 
dparpia, see Dieterich Byzant. Archiv. 
i 123), on the curious ground that this 
word denoted not a ovyyévera but 
merely a ovotnua. The insertion of 
the gloss referred to above had pro- 
bably blinded him to the connexion, 
tatpos...tatpia, upon which the whole 
sense depends. 

The difficulty is not a serious one: 
for the addition év ovpavois kal emt 
yhs, like the similar phrase in i 21, 
ovopatopevov ov povoy ev TO ald 
Tourm dda kal évy tO péAdorti, is 





at Aad 


= ee eee me 








\ 


TIT 36,37] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


175 


3 6°/ ~ ~ \ \ ~ rot 

dvoudera, “iva d@ Upiy KaTa TO TAOUTOS THs do€ns 
’ ~ AW / ~ \ lal Ig ~ 

auTOU dvvauer KpaTawOnva Sia TOU mvEevuaTos a’ToU 


> \ sf > ~ \ 
Els TOV Eow avOpwrrov, ‘TKATOLKHOAL TOV xX plo-rov ola 


~ , 3 ~ / € - > 3 , 5) 
$ ¥ - 
TS: Tle TES EY Tals Kapolais UM@V €V AY aT EppiCw 


perhaps only made for the sake of 
emphasis. We may, however, note the 
Rabbinic use of 8'OD8 (familia) —‘the 
family above and the family below’: 
see Taylor Sayings of Jewish Fathers 
ed. 2, p. 125, and Thackeray St Paul 
and Contemp. Jewish Thought p. 
149. 

ovopaterat] ‘is named’, i.e. derives 
its name: for the construction with 
ex compare Soph. O. 7. 1036 dar 
evouaoOns €k tvxns Tavtns ds ef (sc. 
Oidimovs), and Xenoph. Memorab. iv 
5 12 en de kai ro SiadéyeoOa dvopa- 
ocOnvat ék Tov k.T.X. 

16, Tov éow av6pwrov] This phrase 
finds its full explanation in 2 Cor. 
iv 16 80 ovK éveakovpev, GAN’ ei Kat 
6 two nav avOpwros diapbeipera, 
GAN’ 6 €ow judy dvakawwodrar ypépa 
kai nuepa. ‘Our outward man’ is in 
the Apostle’s subsequent phrase 7 
ETlyElos NUaY oikia TOU oKnvovs, Which 
is subject to dissolution : ‘ our inward 
man ’is that part of our nature which 
has fellowship with the eternal, which 
looks ‘not at the things which are 
seen, but at the things which are not 
seen. There is no reason to seek for 
a philosophical precedent for the 
phrase: at any rate Plato Rep. 5894, 
which is persistently quoted, offers no 
parallel ; for there 6 éyros avOpwmos, 
‘the man who is within him’, is only 
one of three contending constituents 
(the others being a multiform beast 
and a lion) which the Platonic parable 
supposes to be united under what is 
outwardly a human form, 

In St Paul the phrase occurs again 
in Rom. vii22. And in 1 Pet. iii 3 f. we 
have a contrast between 6 ¢éwéev... 


iuatioy Koopos and 6 kpumros tis 
kapdias avOpwmos évy toa apOapra rod 


_ Hovxlov Kal mpaéws mvevparos. 


17. Kkatouxjoa| Karorxeiy is rare 
in St Paul, who more frequently uses 
oixety or évoxeiv. It occurs again only 
in Col. i 19, ii 9, and we have karovkn- 
tnpvoy in Eph. ii 22. When used in 
contrast to mapocxeiy the word implies 
& permanent as opposed to a tem- 
porary residence (see Lightfoot’s note 
on Clem. Rom. pref.); where it occurs 
by itself it suggests as much of 
permanence as oikeiy necessarily does, 
but no more. 

év ayarn| Reasons for joining 
these words with what precedes have 
been given in the exposition. In 
favour of this collocation it may also 
be observed (1) that ¢v dyamn forms 
the emphatic close of a sentence 
several times in this epistle; see i 4 
and note, iv 2, 16: and (2) that the 
anacoluthon which follows appears to 
be more natural if the fresh start is 
made by the participles and not by an 
adverbial phrase; compare, e.g., iv 2 
avexouevor GAAnAwY év ayarn and Col. 
ii 2 cvvBiBacbérres ev dyarn. 

éppiCopevor] St Paul is fond of 
passing suddenly to the nominative 
of a participle, as in the two passages 
last quoted, to which may be added 
Col. iii 16 6 Aoyos...evorkeitw év tpiv... 
dvddcxovres: see Lightfoot’s note on 
that passage. There is therefore no 
reason for supposing that iva is be- 
lated, as was suggested by Origen, 
and as is implied in the rendering of 
the A.V., ‘that ye, being rooted’, &c. 
On the contrary, iva depends directly 
on the participles which precede it. 

For the metaphors compare (1) 
Col. ii 7 éppiCwpévoe kat ésrorxodopov- 
pevo. ev avt@ kal BeBatovpevor rh 
mioret, and (2) Col. i 23 et ye émupévere 
TH miorer TeOepedtmpevor kat édpaioz, 
and 1 Pet. v 10, where Gepediooer is 


176 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [III 18—20 


¢ > / 7 
Siva éEicyvonte KaTahaPeE- 


/ \ / 
pévor Kat TeGeneNiwpevot, 
~ ~ if / \ 7 \ ~~ A 
cla cuv raow Tois ayiows Ti TO TAATOS Kat MIKOS Kal 
c rf \ / n 
Uos kal Babos, Syvavat Te THY vTepBadAoveav THs 
~ lo e/ a > ~~ 
yvarews ayarny TOU XpLOTOV, iva TAnpwOnTe Eis mav 
\ , lad ‘a 20 la \ / e \ / 
TO TAnpwua ToU Yeo. *T@ O€ Suvapevep UTED wavre 
~ a <S > ) Oo 
TOUT aL VITEPEKTEDLTTOU wy aitouyeba 4 voouuev KaTa 


found in NKLP, though not in AB. 
For the combination of the metaphors 
Wetstein cites Lucian de Saltat. 34 
womep tives pita Kal Oewedia tis 
opxnoews noav. 

18. e&ucyvonre| A late word, found 
but once elsewhere in the Greek 
Bible, Ecclus. vii 6 (B: but NAC 
have the simple verb). It suggests 
the difficulty of the task, which calls 
for all their strength. 

xatadaBéoba| The middle is found 
thrice (Acts iv 13, x 34, xxv 25), and, 
as here, in the sense of ‘to perceive’. 

mAdros k.T.A.] Theodore’s comment 
is admirable and sufficient : iva ecimy 
Ths xapiros TO peéyeOos amo téyv Tap 
npov ovoparov. St Paul is not think- 
ing of the measures of the ‘ holy 
temple’, as some of the moderns 
suggest; nor of the shape of the cross, 
as many of the ancients prettily 
fancied. He is speaking in vague 
terms of the magnitude of that which 
it will take them all their strength 
to apprehend—the Divine mercy, 
especially as now manifested in the 
inclusion of the Gentiles, the Divine 
secret, the Divine purpose for man- 
kind in Christ. To supply ris dyamns 
Tov xpicrov out of the following 
sentence is at once needless and 
unjustifiable. With the intentional 
vagueness of the phrase we may com- 
pare Didaché c. 12 civerw yap e&ere 
deEvav kal dpiorepav. 

19. vmepBaddAovear] “YrepBadXew is 
used with either an accusative or a 
genitive (Aesch. Plat. Arist.) of the 
object surpassed. So too tmepéyew: 
comp. Phil. ii 3 vmepéyovras éavrady 
with Phil. iv 7 9 dmepéyouora ravra voor. 


eis x.t.A.] ‘up to the measure of’: 
comp. iv 13 eis pérpov nAukias Tov 
TAnpoparos Tod xpicrod. The Apostle’s 
prayer finds its climax in the request 
that they may attain to the complete- 


-ness towards which God is working 


and in which God will be all in all. 
Ideally this position is theirs already 
in Christ, as he says to the Colossians 
(ii 9): év avt@ karouKet wav Td TAN- 
papa ths OedtnTos Twparike@s, Kal éore 
év avT@ wemAnpopevot, k.T.X. Its reali- 
sation is the Divine purpose and, 
accordingly, the Apostle’s highest 
prayer. On the sense of rd wAnpopa 
Tov Oeov see the exposition. We may 
usefully compare with the whole 
phrase Col. ii 19, where St Paul 
describes the intermediate stage of 
the process, saying of the Body: 
avéer tiv avénow Tov Oeod. 

The reading of B and a few cur- 
sives, iva mAnpoOn wav To TANpopa Tod 
6eod, offers an easier construction, but 
an inferior sense. 

20, 21. ‘Have I asked a hard 
thing? I have asked it of Him who 
can do far more than this; who can 
vastly transcend our petition, even 
our imagining: of Him whose mighty 
working is actually at work in us. 
Glory be to Him! Glory in the 
Church and in Christ Jesus—glory in 
the Body alike and in the Head— 
through all the ages of eternity’. 

20. 1T@ dé duvauévm] Compare the 
doxology in Rom. xvi 25, r@ dé duva- 
Hév@ vpas ornpigéat, K.T.A. 

vmepextrepiagov| This word occurs 
twice in St Paul’s earliest epistle, but 
not elsewhere: 1 Thess. ili 10 vukros , 
kal nuepas virepexmepiocov Sedpevor, V \ 








III. 21—IV 2] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


177 


\ ov \ ? / ? ec A QL eo | / ? 

Thv Ovvapw THY évepryouuerny ev neiv, ™ adT@ 4 Soka év 
~ y \ “~ lan) 3 l4 \ 

TH exkAnola Kat év Xpior@ "Incov ets Tawas Tas yeveds 
and van) a / 

TOU AlWVOS THY aiwywY’ duNy. 


Ly 


TI VA) Ss e “ > \ € Oe > id 
aApaka @® OuUV vueas EyYw O EO ALOS EV KUPlL@ 


9%-/ ~ co / © > 10 2 \ 

aFiws TepirTatTnoat THs KAnoews ns EKANUNTE, *yETA 
, / \ fe \ 

Taons Tarrevodppocuvys Kal Mpav’TNTOS, META MaKoo- 


13 nyeioOa avtovs vmepexmeptaaod év 
ayarn. Here it is employed as a 
preposition to govern ov airovpeda: 
so that the construction is, ‘to Him 
that is able to do more than all, far 
beyond what we ask’. The phrase 
wmep mavra, which was to have been 
followed by @ airovpyea, has thus 
become isolated through the exuber- 
ance with which the Apostle empha- 
sises his meaning. 

vooupev] Compare Phil. iv 7 7 
elpjvn Tov Oeov 4 vmepéxovoa mavta 
your. 

THY evepyouperny] ‘that worketh’: a 
sufficient rendering, though the force 
of the passive can only be given if we 
say ‘that is made to work’: see the 
detached note on éevepyeiv. Compare 
Col. i 29 card thy évépyevav avTov THY 
évepyoupérny ev epot ev Suvdpet. 

21. é€v tH KA] Sin the church 
and in Christ Jesus’. The variants 
help to shew how striking is the true 
text. For (1) the order is reversed 
in D,G,; and (2) cai is dropped in 
KLP etc., whence the rendering of 
the Authorised Version, ‘in the 
church by Christ Jesus’. With this 
timidity we may contrast Jerome’s 
comment ad Joc. : ‘Ipsi itaque deo sit 
gloria: primum in ecclesia, quae est 
pura, non habens maculam neque 
rugam, et quae propterea gloriam 
dei recipere potest, quia corpus est 
Christi: deinde in Christo Jesu, quia 
in corpore assumpti hominis, cuius 
sunt uniuersa membra credentium, 
omnis diuinitas inhabitet corpora- 
liter’. 

yeveds| Compare Col. i 26 amé trav 

EPHES.” 


aldvev Kal dro Téy yeveav: and see 
the note on v. 5 above. 

IV. 1—6. ‘Ihave declared to you 
the Divine purpose, and the calling 
whereby you have been called to take 
your place init. I have prayed that 
you may know its uttermost meaning 
for yourselves. Prisoner as I am, I 
can do no more. But I plead with 
you that you will respond to your 
calling. Make your conduct worthy 
of your position. First and foremost, 
cultivate the meek and lowly mind, 
the patient forbearance, the charity, 
without which a common life is im- 
possible, For you must eagerly pre- 
serve your spiritual oneness. Oneness 
is characteristic of the Gospel. Con- 
sider its present working and its pre- 
destined issue: there is one Body, 
animated by one Spirit, cherishing 
one Hope. Look back to its imme- 
diate origin: there is one Lord, to 
whom we are united by one Faith in 
Him, by one Baptism in His name. 
Rise to its ultimate source: there is 
one God, the Father of all, who is 
over all, through all and in all’. 

I. Ilapaxad@ otv vuas| The same 
words occur in Rom. xii 1, after a 
doxology which, as here, closes the 
preceding chapter. 

déiws| Comp. Col. i 10 wepuraricat 
déiws tov Kvpiov, I Thess. ii 12 eis ro 
mepirateiy vpas d&iws tov Oeod Tod 
Kadovvros vpas, Phil. i 27 pdvov dgiws 
Tov evayyeNiov Tod xpioTod Trodirever Oe. 
For mepurareiv and its synonyms see 
the note on ii 2. 

2. tamewoppoovns| For the low 
sense of this word in other writers, 


T2 


178 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[IV 3—6 


Oupias, dveyouevor dd\Andwv év ayarn, orovddCovTes 
Tnpe THY EvOTNTA TOU TVEVMATOS EV TH TUVOET UM TIS 
eipnvns’ *éy o@ua Kat év mvevpa, KaOws Kat €xAnOnte év 
pud éArridt Tis KAnTEws UYuav' Seis KUpLOS, Mia TioTis, eV 


Barrio pa: 


and for the place of ‘humility’ in the 
moral code of Christianity, see Light- 
foot’s note on Phil. ii 3: and for 
mpavtns and paxpoOdupuia, see his note 
on Col. iii 12. 

avexouevot] For the transition to 
the nominative participle see the note 
on iii 17. 

3. omovddfovtes] ‘giving dili- 
gence’: ‘satis agentes’ Cypr., ‘solli- 
citi’ Vulg. For the eagerness which 
the word implies, see the exposition. 

évornta| Considering that St Paul 
lays so much stress on unity, it is 
remarkable that he uses the abstract 
word ‘oneness’ only here and in 2. 
13. In each case he quickly passes 
to its concrete embodiment—here év 
capa, in % 13 eis avdpa réedecov. In 
both places it is followed by defining 
genitives—rovd mvevparos and (v. 13) 
Ths wiotews Kal Ths émtyyocews Tod 
viovd rod beov. It is possible to take 
Tov mvevparos here of the Holy Spirit, 
as the producer and maintainer of 
unity: comp, 7 Kowevia Tov dayiov 
mvevpatos, 2 Cor. xiii 13; and so 
perhaps xowovia rvevpatos, Phil. ii 1. 
But it is equally possible to regard 
‘the spirit’ as the ‘one spirit’ of the 
‘one body’ : see the next verse. 

auvdécuo| Peace is here the bond 
of oneness. In Ool. iii 14f. ‘love’ 
is ‘the bond of perfectness’, while 
‘peace’ is the ruling consideration 
which decides all such controversies 
as might threaten the unity of the 
Body: see Lightfoot’s notes on that 
passage. 

4. év cdpa] Having already broken 
his construction by the introduction 
of the nominative participles, St Paul 
adds a series of nominatives, of which 


- Lord united all believers: 


6 \ \ \ / (tees: Yocmibsa | / 
ELS Geos Kal TATHO TAVTWVY O €7TlL TAVTWMYV 


the first two may be regarded as in 
apposition to the participles—‘ being, 
as ye are, one body and one spirit’. 
The others are then loosely attached 
with no definite construction. In 
translation, however, it is convenient 
to prefix the words ‘there is’ to the 
whole series. 

év mvedpa| For the ‘one spirit’, 
which corresponds to the ‘one body’, 
see the note on ii 18 ev évi mvevpatu. 

eArids x.t.A.] Comp. i 18 9 éAmis 
Ths KAjoews avtov. God’s calling is 
the general ground of hope: ‘your 
calling’, ie. His calling of you, makes 
you sharers in the one common hope. 

5. els Kvptos] Comp. I Cor. viii 6 
npiy eis Beds 0 marnp, € ov Ta mavTa 
kat pets eis avrov, kal eis KUptos “‘Ingovs 
Xptorés, 80 ov ta mavtra Kal myeis OC 
avrov: also 1 Tim. ii 5 eis yap Geos, 
eis kal peoirns K.T.A. 

pia riots] One faith in the one 
comp. 
Rom. iii 30 «is 6 beds, bs duxadoes 
TepiTouny ek mictews Kal dakpoBvaoriav 
O.a tis miotews. 

év Barricya| Baptism ‘in the name 
of the Lord Jesus’ was the act which 
gave definiteness to faith in Him. It 
was at the same time, for all alike, 
the instrument of embodiment in the 
‘one body’: 1 Cor. xii 13 Kal yap év 
évl mvevpate jets mavres eis Ev copa 
eBarricOnpev, etre "lovdaiou etre “EXAN- 
ves, etre SovAat elre €hevOepor. 

6. emi mavrwry«.r.r.| Comp. Rom.ix 5 
6 Ov emt mavtav beds eddoyntos eis Tovs 
aiavas. Supreme over all, He moves 


through all, and rests in all. With év © 


maow we may compare I Cor. xv 28 
iva 9 6 Oeds mavra év waow, though & 
there the emphasis falls on mdvra. 


“ 


\ 


} 





LV 7, 8] 


\ § / \ Pod 
Kal Ola TavTwy Kal év rTacww. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


179 


YP \ BY: c / € val 
Evi O€ EKATTW HWY 


, e / la lad ~ lod 
€000n 4 yapis KaTa TO METpOV Tis Swpeds TOU Xplorou. 


8010 A€ryer 


"ANAaBAC €ic FyoC HYMAAWTEYCEN ATYMAAWCIAN, 
\ » , a > ’ 
Kal EAWKEN ADMATA TOIC ANOPHTOIC 


The text of SABCP (ev waow) is 
undoubtedly right. D,G,KL, with the 
Syriac and Latin, add jyiv: and a 
few cursives have vyiv, which is repre- 
sented in the A.V. When we have 
restored the reading, we have to ask 
what is the gender of mdvrewv and 
mwaow. The Latin translators were 
compelled to face this question when 
rendering émt mdyrov and da wdvror. 
All possible variations are found, but 
the most usual rendering seems to be 
that of the Vulgate, ‘super omnes et 
per omnia’, which also has good early 
authority. The fact that rarjp ravrev 
precedes might suggest that the mas- 
culine is intended throughout: but 
€rt mavrav at once admits of the 
wider reference, see Rom. ix 5 quoted 
above; and we shall probably be 
right in refusing to limit the Apostle’s 
meaning. 

_  7—13. ‘Not indeed that this one- 

ness implies uniformity of endowment 
or of function. On the contrary, to 
each individual in varying measures 
by the gift of Christ has been en- 
trusted the grace which I have already 
spoken of as entrusted to me. The 
distribution of gifts is involved in the 
very fact of the Ascension. When 
He ascended, we read, He gave 
gifts. He, the All-fulfiller, descended 
to ascend: and He it is that gave 
apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors 
and teachers—a rich variety, but all 
for unity: to fit the members of the 
holy people to fulfil their appropriate 
service, for the building of the body 
of the Christ, until we all reach the 
goal of the consciously realised unity, 
which cannot be reached while any 
are left behind—the full-grown Man, 


the complete maturity of the fulfilled 
Christ’. 

7. 1 xapts] BD, with some others 
omit the article: but it has probably 
fallen out after €66n. 

pérpov] Comp. Rom. xii 3 éxaore 
ws 6 beds éuepicev wérpov rictrews. The 
word, which is found in only one other 
passage of St Paul, 2 Cor. x 13, 
occurs thrice in this context; see vz. 
13, 16, This repetition of an un- 
accustomed word, when it has been 
once used, is illustrated by the re- 
currence of évérns, vv. 3, 13. 

8. dd Aéyes] The exact phrase 
recurs in v 14. We find kat aadw 
Aéyet, following yéyparra, in Rom. 
XV 10; comp. also 2 Cor. vi 2, Gal. iii 
16. We may supply 7 ypadn, as in 
Rom. x 11 and elsewhere, if a nomi- 
native is required. . 

avaBas] In the xx of Ps. lxvii 
(Ixviii) 19 the words are: ’AvaBas eis 
Uos nxpaderevoas alypadaciar, éda- 
Bes Sopara év dvOpadrrois (avOpanrm B*?). 
‘The Psalmist pictures to himself a 
triumphal procession, winding up the 
newly-conquered hill of Zion, the 
figure being that of a victor, taking 
possession of the enemy’s citadel, and 
with his train of captives and spoil 
following him in the triumph....In the 
words following, Hast received gifts 
among men, the Psalmist alludes to 
the tribute offered either by the van- 
quished foes themselves, or by others 
who come forward spontaneously to 
own the victor, and secure his favour’ 
(Driver, Sermons on the O. T., 1892, 
pp. 194 f.). 

St Paul makes two alterations in 
the text of the Lxx: (1) he changes 
the verbs from the second person to 


iZz— 2 


180 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[IV 9, 10 


; oa! he NS Gel. \ / > A 

970 b€ “ANEBH TL €oTIV EL py OTL Kal KaTéBn Els TA 

cr n \ / ‘ 

KaTwrepa péon THS yns; 0 KaTaBas a’Tos éoTw Kal 
> e / / ~ > ~ e/ id 

6 dvaBas UTEepavw TavTwy TwY OvUpaveY, iva mTAnowon 


g KxaréByn]+ mpwror 


the third, (2) he reads €dexev ddéuara 
trois dvOpemos for ¢daBes Sopata ev 
avOpenas. Accordingly of the two 
words which he selects to comment 
on, dvaBas and edexev, the second is 
entirely absent from the original of 
the text. The explanation is thus 
given by Dr Driver (ibid. pp. 197 f.): 
‘St Paul is not here following the 
genuine text of the Psalm, but is in 
all probability guided by an old 
Jewish interpretation with which he 
was familiar, and which, instead of 
received gifts among men, para- 
phrased gave gifts to men.... The 
Targum on the Psalms renders: 
“Thou ascendedst up to the firma- 
ment, O prophet Moses, thou tookest 
captives captive, thou didst teach the 
words of the law, thou gavest them as 
gifts to the children of men”’, The 
Peshito Syriac likewise has: ‘Thou 
didst ascend on high and lead capti- 
vity captive, and didst give gifts to 
the sons of men’. For other ex- 
amples of the influence of traditional 
Jewish interpretations in St Paul’s 
writings, see Dr Driver’s art. in the 
Expositor, 1889, vol. ix, pp. 20 ff. 

9. xatéBn| For the addition of 
mparoy, see the note on various read- 
ings. 

kardrepa]| So far as the Greek 
alone is concerned, it might be allow- 
able to explain this as meaning ‘this 
lower earth’. But the contrast dzep- 
dvw tév ovpavey is against such an 
interpretation, And the phrase is 
Hebraistic, and closely parallel to 
that of Ps. lxii (Ixiii) 10 eiveXevorovrat 
els rd katérata THs yijs, Le. Sheol, or 
Hades; and of Ps. exxxviii (cxxxix) 
15 €v rois katwrdras (B xarwrdre) ris 
yis. Whether we interpret the phrase 
as signifying ‘the lower parts of the 


earth’ or ‘the parts below the earth’ 
is a matter of indifference, as in 
either case the underworld is the 
region in question. The descent is to 
the lowest, as the ascent is to the 
highest, that nothing may remain un- 
visited. 

IO. avrdés eorw xzrAr.] ‘He tt ts 
that also ascended’: so in v. II Kat 
avros édaxev. 

vmepave | ‘above’, not ‘far above’ : 
see the note on i 21. 

mTavtTav tov ovpavar| ‘all heavens’, 
or ‘all the heavens’. The plural ov- 
pavoi, which, though not classical, is 
frequent in the New Testament, is 
generally to be accounted for by the 
fact that the Hebrew word for ‘heaven’ 
is only used in the plural. But certain 
passages, such as the present and 
2 Cor. xii 2 €ws tpirov ovpavod (comp. 
also Heb. iv 14), imply the Jewish 
doctrine of a seven-fold series of 
heavens, rising one above the other. 
For this doctrine, and for its history 
in the Christian Church, see art. 
‘Heaven’ by Dr S. D. F. Salmond in 
Hastings’ Bible Dictionary. The 
descent and ascent of ‘the Beloved’ 
through the Seven Heavens are de- 
picted at length in the Ascension of 
Isaiah (on which see my art. in the 
same dictionary). 

mAnpdon| The context, which de- 
scribes the descent to the lowest and 
the ascent to the highest regions, 
suggests the literal meaning of ‘filling 
the universe’ with His presence: 
comp. Jer. xxiii 24 p27 ovy! Tov ovpa- 
vov Kal thy ynv éyd mAnpd; éyes 
Kvpwos. But in view of the use of the 
verb and its substantive in this epistle 
in the sense of ‘ fulfilment’, it would | 
be unwise to limit the meaning here. , 
He who is Himself ‘all in all fulfilled’ \ 


Nay 
i 


LY -TY, 12] 


\ / 
TA TAVTA. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


181 


\ \ y \ 
“kal avTOs €A\WKEN TOUS MEV aroorXous, 


Tous 6€ mpopnras, Tous 6€ evayyeo ras, Tovs O€ Tol- 


pevas Kal dwWacKadous, * 


(i 23) is at the same time the fulfiller 
of all things that are, whether in 
heaven or on earth. We may not lose 
sight of the Apostle’s earlier words in 
io dvaxeparavscac bat Ta javra ev TO 
XpioT®, Ta em TOLs ovpavois Kal Ta emt 
tis yns. The local terminology of 
descent, ascent, and omnipresence 
thus gains its spiritual interpretation. 

II. avros €dwxey x.t.A.| ‘He it ts 
that gave some for aposiles’ ete. 
Compare 1 Cor. xii 28 kal ods pev 
€Gero 6 Oeds ev rH éxkAnoia TpoTov 
dmrogrohous, Sevrepov mpodyras, k.T.A. 
"ESwxev is here used, because the 
Apostle is commenting on the édaxev 
ddpnara of his quotation. The dduara 
of the ascended Christ are some of 
them apostles, some prophets, and so 
forth. With avrés edwkey compare 
avtés éotw Kal 6 avaBas in the pre- 
ceding verse. 

drootédous...mpopyras| * Apostles 
and prophets’ have already been 
spoken of as the foundation of the 
Divine house (ii 20), and as those 
members of the holy people to whom 
the mystery of the Christ is primarily 
revealed (iii 5). 

Under the term ‘apostles’ no 
doubt the Twelve and St Paul are 
chiefly referred to: but that the 
designation was not confined to them 
was shewn by Lightfoot (Gad. pp. 95 f.), 
and has since been illustrated by the 
mention of apostles in the Didaché. 
Prophets are referred to in Acts xi 
27 f. (Agabus and others), xiii 1, xv 
32 (Judas and Silas), xxi 9 (prophet- 
esses), 10; I Cor. xii 28, xiv 20ff. 
For the prominent place which they 
hold in the Didaché, see the exposi- 
tion. For a discussion of both terms 
I must refer to my articles ‘ Apostle’, 
‘Prophet’, in the Encyclopaedia 
Biblica. 


4 ar 00s TOV KATAPTLO MOV TOV 


evayyekuoras|] The term ‘ evange- 
lists’ denotes those who are specially 
engaged in the extension of the 
Gospel to new regions. It is found 
again only in Acts xxi 8, 2 Tim. iv 5. 

mowuevas] Used only here of Christ- 
ian teachers, though it is applied to 
our Lord in Heb. xiii 20, 1 Pet. ii 25 
and v 4 (dpxuroiunv); comp. John x 
11,14. Comp. also the use of zrowpai- 
vey in John xxi 16, Acts xx 28, 
I Pet. v 2, Jude 12. It suggests the 
feeding, protection and rule of the 
flock. 

didackddovs| ‘Teachers’ are joined 
with ‘prophets’ in Acts xiii 1, and 
they follow them in the list in 1 Cor. 
xii 28; but we have no other refer- 
ence to them as a class, except in 
Rom. xii 7 (6 diddaoxor, év rH didacKa- 
Xia). ‘Prophets and teachers’ are 
also mentioned in the Didaché c. 15 
(quoted in the exposition). The 
‘pastors and teachers’ are here sepa- 
rated from the foregoing and linked 
together by the bond of a common 
article. It is probable that their 
sphere of activity was the settled 
congregation, whereas the apostles, 
prophets and evangelists had a wider 
range. 

12. xarapricpov] The verb xarap- 
rifew is discussed by Lightfoot on 
t Thess. iii 10 (Notes on Epp. p. 47). 
He illustrates its prominent idea of 
‘fitting together’ by its classical use 
for reconciling political factions, 
and its use in surgery for setting 
bones. In the New Testament it is 
used of bringing a thing into its 
proper condition, whether for the 
first time or, as more commonly, after 
lapse. Thus we have (1) Heb. xi 3 
katnpricba Tovs aidvas pyyare Oeod, 
xiii 21 xarapricat vpas év mavtl dyabe 
els TO mothoat TO O€Anpa adrov, I Pet. 


182 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[IV 13 


> > > \ lal lA 
aryiwy eis Epyov Siakovias, €is olKOOoMNnY TOU TwWpaToOS 
Po an / € 7 > \ 
TOU xpioTOU, Bpuéxpl KATAVTHTwWMEV Ol TaVvTES Els THY 


V 10 xarapricet, otnpifer, cOevdcer: 
(2) literally, Mark i 19, of putting 
nets in order; metaphorically, of 
restoration of an offender, Gal. vi 1 
xarapritere Tovodroy, and of the rectifi- 
cation of short-comings, 1 Thess. iii Io 
Kataprica Ta voTepnpata Ths TioTEws 
tpov. The senseof restoration prevails 
in 2 Cor. xiii 9 Totro kai evxopeba, THY 
dpov kardprioww, which is followed by 
xaraprifecOe in v. 11: in I Cor. i 10 
karnpticpévor ev TH at voi follows 
the mention of oyicpara. 

For the form see Clem. Strom. iv 
26 (P. 638) r@ Tod owThpos Karapriona 
Tedecovpevov: and comp. Aristeas, 
Swete Introd. to LXX 544, mpods 
ayy éerioxeyw Kat rpdrev eLapticpov. 

In this passage xarapriopos sug- 
gests the bringing of the saints to a 
coudition of fitness for the discharge 
of their functions in the Body, without 
implying restoration from a disor- 
dered state. 

eis ¢pyov Saxovias] The nearest 
parallel is 2 Tim. iv 5 epyov moinooy 
evayyehiorod (for epyov miorews in 
2 Thess. i 11 is ‘activity inspired by 
faith’, comp. 1 Thess. i 3): but the 
sense here is much more general than 
if we had eis Epyov dtaxovev. 

Ataxovia is the action of a servant 
(Sudxovos) who waits at table, etc: 
comp. Luke x 40, xvii 8, xxii 26 f, 
Acts vi 1f. But it has the same 
extension as our word ‘service’, and 
it was at once applied to all forms of 
Christian ministration. Thus 7 d:a- 
kovia Tov Aoyov is contrasted with 7 
ka@npepiv Scaxovia in Acts vi 1, 4. 
And it is used with a wide range 
extending from the work of the aposto- 
late (Acts 117, 25, Rom. xi 13) to the 
informal ‘service to the saints’ to 
which the household of Stephanas 
had appointed themselves (eis Staxo- 
viav Tois dyios éraéav éavrovs 1 Cor, 
xvi1s5). Here we may interpret it 


of any service which the saints render 
to one another, or to the Body of 
which they are members, or (which is 
the same thing) to the Lord who is 
their Head. 

The phrase eis épyov Siaxovias is 
most naturally taken as dependent on 
xataptionov. The change of preposi- 
tions (mpos...eis) points in this direc- 
tion, but is not in itself conclusive: 
the absence of the definite articles 
however, with the consequent com- 
pactness of the phrase, is strongly 
confirmatory of this view. The mean- 
ing accordingly is : ‘for the complete 
equipment of the saints for the work 
of service’, 

oikodouny| ‘building’ rather than 


‘edification’: for the picturesque- — 
ness of the metaphor must be pre- 


served. Comp. ii 21 maca oixodopy 
...av&er, and the note there. 
phrase eis olxodouny «.7.A. gives the 


general result of all that has hitherto — 


been spoken of; as in v. 16, where it 
is repeated. 


13. Katavtjcopev| Thisverbisused — 


nine times in the Acts, of travellers 
reaching a place of destination. Other- 
wise it is confined in the New Testa- 
ment to St Paul. In 1 Cor. xiv 36 it 


is contrasted with ¢&edéciv: 4 ap — 


tpav o Adyos Tov Geov e&HAOev, 4 eis 
vpas pdvous Katyvrncev; (“were you 
its starting-point, or were you its only 
destination ?’): see also 1 Cor. x I1 
NOV, eis OVS TA TEAN TOY al@ver KaTHV- 
tyxev, Phil. iii 11 ef mas KatavtTice eis 
THy é€avacracw x.7.rA. Unity is our 
journey’s end, our destination. 

of mavres] i.e. ‘all of us together’. 
As often in the phrase ra savra, 
when it means ‘the universe of things’, 
the definite article gathers all the 
particulars under one view: comp. 
Rom. xi 32 ouvékdewrev yap 6 beds 
Tous travtas eis amevOiay va Tovs mdvras 
€Xejon, 1 Cor. x 17 Ore eis dpros, év 


The © 





—— 


IV 14] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


183 


e / ro 7 \ ~ ~ ~ raat 
EVOTHTA THS TiaTEWS Kal THS ériyVWOEWS TOU ViOv Tov 
al > J 4 > / ro 
Geov, eis avdpa TéXeLov, cis wéTpOV 1jAiKias TOU TAnpw- 
~ a / / Sy } 
fatos TOU xpioToU “iva pnkéTt wmeEV vyTroL, KAVOwWY- 


O@pa of ToAdoi ecper, of yap mavres €k 
Tov €vds aprov peréxoper, 

eis...els...efs] The three clauses are 
co-ordinate. In accordance with the 
general rule caravray is followed by eis 
to indicate destination. 

évornta| See above, on 2. 3. 

miorews| Comp. pia miotis, v. 5. 
Both wicrews and éemvyvdcews are to 
be taken with the following genitive 
Tov viod tov Geov: comp. Gal. ii 20 év 
mioret (@ TH Tov viov Tod Oeov. The 
unity springs from a common faith in, 
and a common knowledge of, Christ 
as the Son of God. 

emiyvoceas | ‘ knowledge’, not ‘full’ 
or ‘further knowledge’: see the de- 
tached note on éxiyveors. 

Tov viov tov Oeod| St Paul’s first 
preaching at Damascus is thus de- 
scribed in Acts ix 20, éxnpvocey Tov 
"Inoovy Ore ovTos é€atw 6 vids Tov Oeod. 
In his earliest epistle we have the 
Divine sonship mentioned in con- 
nexion with the resurrection: I 
Thess. i 10 dvapevew Tov vidv adrod éx 
TOY Ovpavar, Ov Hyeipev EK TOV VEKPOY, 
"Incovv, x7.A.: and this connexion is 
emphasised in Rom. i 3 rot opurbév- 
Tos viov Geov év Suvdper kata mvedpa 
dywwovwns €& dvactacews vexpdov. On 
the special point of the title in the 
present context see the exposition. 

avdpa| The new human unity is in 
St Paul’s language «is xavds dvOpo- 
mos (ii 15). Here, however, he uses 
dvijp rédewos, because his point is the 
maturity of the full-grown organism. 
Man as distinguished from angels or 
the lower animals is dv@pwmos. He is 
dvjp as distinguished either (a) from 
woman, or (b) from boy. It is in view 
of this last distinction that avjp is 
here used, to signify ‘a human being 
grown to manhood’, Comp. 1 Cor. 
xiii Il ére Hpny vymios...6re yéyova 


dvnp: so here, in the next verse, we 
have by way of contrast ta pnykére 
Gpev vyTriot. 

It is specially to be observed that 
St Paul does not say els avdpas tedei- 
ovs, though even Origen incidentally 
so interprets him (Cramer Catena, 
ad loc., p. 171). Out of the imma- 
turity of individualism (vymot), we 
are to reach the predestined unity of 
the one full-grown Man (es dvdpa 
Té\eov). 

pérpov] ‘the measure’ in the sense 
of ‘the full measure’; as in the 
phrases pérpov 78ns Hom. J7. xi 225, 
coins pérpov, Solon iv 52. Td pérpov 
Tis iAckias is quoted by Wetstein 
from Lucian Zmag. 6 and Philostra- 
tus, Vit. Soph. 1 25, 26, p. 543. 

jAukias| A stage of growth, whether 
measured by age or stature. It is 
used for maturity in the phrase 
nAukiay éyew (John ix 21, as also in | 
classical Greek). 

mwAnpoparos| We cannot separate 
‘the fulness of the Christ’ in this 
passage from the statement in i 23 
that the Christ is ‘being fulfilled’ 
and finds His fulness in the Church. 
When all the saints have come to the 
unity which is their destined goal, or, 
in other words, to the full-grown 
Man, the Christ will have been ful- 
filled. Thus they will have together 
reached ‘the full measure of the ma- 
turity of the fulness of the Christ’. 

14—16. ‘So shall we be babes no 
longer, like little boats tossed and 
swung round by shifting winds, the 
sport of clever and unscrupulous in- 
structors; but we shall hold the truth 
in love, and so grow up into the 
Christ. He is the Head: from Him 
the whole Body, an organic unity 
articulated and compacted by all the 
joints of its system, active in all the 


184 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[IV 14 


‘4 \ / » ae ae ~ } } / 
Comevor Kal epipepouevor TavTt aveuw THs OWacKaNas 
> can) / an > / ) Sf \ A 
év TN kuBia Tov avOpwrwy év ravoupyia mpos Thy pebo- 


functions of its several parts, grows 
with its proper growth and builds 
itself in love’. 

14. vymot] In addition to 1 Cor. 
xiii 11, quoted above, compare 1 Cor. 
iii rf. od« dvvnOny Aarjoa vpiv ws 
mvevpatixois GAN os gapkivois, os 
mio év Xpior@: yada vyas éroriwa, 
ov Bpapa, ovr yap éduvacbe. 

KAvder(ouevor] Comp. Luke viii 
24 7@ avéu kal TO KAvdorr Tod Bdaros, 
James i 6 6 ydp Svaxpwdpevos Eorcev 
Krvdov. Oardocons dveyifouév@ kat 
purifonevw, When used metaphori- 
cally xAvdwv is ‘storm’ rather than 
‘wave’: comp. Demosth. de jfals. leg. 
Pp. 442 kdAvdwva kai paviay ta Kale- 
ornkéta mpaypara jyoupevor, Philo de 
congr. erud. grat. 12 (M. 528) oddov 
kat KAvd@va modvy amd Tov TepaTos 
evdeEapevn, Plut. Coriol. 32 xabarrep 
év xeav. moAA@ kal KAvdou Tis 
médeos. So we find the verb used in 
Josephus Ant. ix II 3, o djpos rapac- 
oopevos Kal KAvooriCopevos. 

mepupepopevor] i.e. swung round. It 
occurs, but only as an ill-attested 
variant for mapapépeo Gat ‘to bé carried 
aside, out of course’, both in Heb. xiii 
Q (Sidayats moridas Kai &évas 1) Tapa- 
péperOe), and in Jude 12 (vepéAae 
advvdpot bd dvépov mapapepopevat). 

mavtt avéum| This is to be taken 
with both participles: the cAvder is 
due to the dveyos, as in Luke viii 23f. 

tis didackadias| ‘ef doctrine’: the 
article marks the abstract use of the 
word, 

KvBig] ‘playing with dice’ («vBou), 

‘gaming’, and so, metaphorically, 
‘trickery’. *Ev is instrumental: ‘dy 
the sleight of men’. KuBevew is used 
in the sense of ‘to cheat’ in Arrian 
Epictet. ii 19 28. Epiphanius Haer. 
xxxiv 1 describes Marcus as payixijs 
vmapywv KuBeias é €umetporaros, and ibid. 
21 says that no cuBeurixy émivora can 
stand against the light of truth. 


Origen ad loc. uses the expression 
kuBeurixas Sidaoxev, for the meaning 
of which we may compare c. Cels. iii 
39 ovdév vdOov Kai KuBeutiKov Kal Tre- 
mAacpévoy kal tmavovpyov ¢xdvrev (of 
the Evangelists). 

trav avOpérev| <A similar depre- 
ciatory use of of dv@peo is found in 
Col. ii 8, 22, the latter of which 
passages is based on Isa. xxix 13. 

mavoupyia| In classical Greek zrav- 
ovpyos, Which originally means ‘ready 
to do anything’, has a better and a 
worse meaning, like our word ‘cun- 
ning’ in biblical English. The better 
meaning is found e.g. in Plato Rep. 
4090 mavotpyos te Kat aodos. It 
prevails in the Lxx, where the word is 
used to render Diy, of which dpom- 
pos is another equivalent: comp. 
Prov. xiii I vids mavotpyos vmjKoos 
matpi. The only place where the ad- 
jective occurs in the New Testament 
is 2 Cor. xii 16, where St Paul play- 
fully uses it of himself, imdpywyr mav- 
odpyos SdA@ tpas edaBov. St Luke 
uses mravoupyia of the ‘craftiness’ of 
our Lord’s questioners in reference to 
the tribute-money, thus hinting at the 
cleverness with which the trap was 
laid, whereas St Mark and St Matthew 
employ harsher words (voxpuots, 
mwovnpia). In his quotation from Job 
Vv 13 in I Cor. iii 19 St Paul renders 
now. by é& rH mavoupyia avrav, 
where the Lxx has ev ry ppovnce 
avrav. In 2 Cor. xi 3 he says o dqus 
éEnnarnoev Evay év th mavoupyia avrod, 
referring to Gen. iii 1, where DIY is 
represented in the Lxx by ¢poupora- 
tos. Lastly, we find the word in 2 
Cor. iv 2, 1) mepimarodvres €v travoup- 
via pndé Sododvres Tov Adyov Tod Geod. 
There it is the context which deter- 
mines that a bad cleverness is meant, 
In our present passage Origen links 
the word with évrpéyeva, another 
word for ‘cleverness’. But the clever- 


IV 15, 16] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


185 


? lon / / . ae ? 5) 
Olav THs mAavns, %aAnOevovtes Se év dyarn avEnowev 


> \ \ / of 
ElS QUTOV Ta TayTa, OS EOTLV 7 Kepany, Xpirros, 


*°éE 


= a \ can / 
ov Tay TO Twa TUVAapuoAOYouuEVoY Kal ouVBiBaCo- 


ness is condemned by its reference, 
mpos Thy p<Oodiay THs mavns. 

peOodiay] Comp. vi 11 rds pedodias 
Tov diaBdrov. Medodia and pedodeverv 
come from p<od0s, which is originally 
a way of search after something, and 
so an inquiry (used e.g. by Plato 
of a scientific investigation), and so 
ultimately ‘method’. The verb peGo- 
devecvy, however, came to have a bad 
sense, ‘to scheme’, ‘to employ craft’, 
Polyb. xxxviii 4 10. In the Lxx it is 
so used in 2 Sam. xix 27 pedaddevoer 
6 SovAds cov. No other instance of 
peOodia is cited ; but for we6odos in the 
bad sense see Plut. Moral. 176, Arte- 
mid. Oneir. iii 25, Conc. Ancyr. I. 

mAavys| In all the passages where 
it occurs in the New Testament mAavy 
will bear the passive meaning, ‘error’, 
though the active meaning, ‘deceit’, 
would sometimes be equally appro- 
priate. There is no reason therefore 
for departing from the first meaning 
of the word, ‘wandering from the 
way’, and so, metaphorically, ‘error’, 
as opposed to ‘truth’. Here it stands 
in sharp contrast with d\ndevorres. 

It seems best to take apos ryv 
peOodiay ris wAayys in close connexion 
with éy wavovpyia, which otherwise 
would be strangely isolated. The pre- 
position wpés will then introduce the 
standard of reference, somewhat as in 
Gal. ii 14 ov dpOomodovew mpos ti 
aGdnOevav rod evayyeAiov. We may 
render, ‘by craftiness in accordance 
with the wiles of error’. 

15. dAnbevovres| ‘maintaining the 
truth’. The Latin version renders, 
‘ueritatem autem facientes’. The 
verb need not be restricted to truth- 
fulness in speech, though that is its 
obvious meaning in Gal. iv 16 dorte 
éxOpbs tyav yéyova dAnOevav vpiv; 
the only other place where it is 


found in the New Testament. The 
large meaning of dA7jeva in the Christ- 
ian vocabulary, and especially the 
immediate contrast with mAdvy in this 
passage, may justify us in the render- 
ing given above. The clause must 
not be limited to mean ‘being true in 
your love’, or ‘dealing truly in love’. 

év dyamn] For the frequent repeti- 
tion of this phrase in the epistle, see 
the notes on i 4, iii 17. Truth and 
love are here put forward as the twin 
conditions of growth. 

ta travra| ‘in all things’, in all 
respects, wholly and entirely : com- 
pare the adverbial use of ra mavra ev 
maow ini 23. 

és eorw| This introduces a new 
thought, by way of supplement: the 
position of ets adrov before ra mavra 
shews that the former sentence is 
in a sense complete. We feel the 
difference, if for the moment we 
transpose the phrases and read avéy- 
copev Ta Tavta eis avtov, 8s éorw 7 
keady: Such an arrangement would 
practically give us the phrase avé7- 
copev eis THY Kepadynv, Which would 
almost defy explanation. Similarly 
in Col. ii 10 év adr@ is separated by 
memAnpopevoe from ds eotiv, which 
again introduces a new thought after 
the sentence has been practically 
completed. 

16. €& ob] Compare the parallel 
passage, Col. ii 19 ov kpardy thy 
nepadny, €& ob wav TO capa Sia Tov 
dav kat curdécpor émxopnyoupevov 
kal ovvBiBadsuevov afer thy avénow 
rov beod. Here, however, the inser- 
tion of Xprords in apposition to ke- 
gad} gives us a smoother construc- 
tion. 

cvvapporoyovpevoy] This word does 
not occur in the parallel passage. 
Its presence here is doubtless due 


186 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[IV 16 


/ ~ ~ 4 / 
pevov Sta maans dis THs éxtyopnytas Kat’ évépyeray éy 


to its having been used in the meta- 
phor of the building in ii 21. See 
the detached note on cvvappodoyeiv. 

cvvBiBatopevov] In Col. ii 2 ovr- 
BiBacbevres probably means ‘instruct- 
ed’,.as it does in the Lxx. But here 
and in Col. ii 19 it means ‘united’. 
In classical Greek it is commonly used. 
of ‘bringing together’ or ‘reconciling’ 
persons. It is possible that in its 
present context it is a term borrowed 
from the medical writers. 

apis] The word ady has very 
various meanings. Besides its com- 
mon use (1) for ‘touching’, ‘touch’ 
and ‘a point of contact’, from adrropa, 
it also signifies (2) ‘kindling’, from 
arrow in a special sense, (3) ‘sand’, as 
a technical term of the arena (see my 
note on Passio Perpet. 10), (4) ‘a 
plague’, often in the txx. None of 
these senses suits the present context 
or the parallel in Col. ii 19 way ro 
capa dia tév apadv Kat cuvdécpor 
emtxopnyovpevoy Kal ovvBiBaduevor. 
For in both places the function 
assigned to the dai is that of hold- 
ing the body together in the unity 
which is necessary to growth. 

But the word has another sense 
which connects it with arr, ‘I fasten’ 
or ‘tie’. The wrestler fastens on his 
opponent with a ap1 apuxros: comp. 
Plut. Anton. 27 apny & ciyev 7j ovv- 
dtairnows apuxrov, moral. 86¥ ei Bda- 
Bepos dv raha kal dvoperayelpioros 
dporyéras apny évdiSwow atrod, Dion. 
H. de Dem. 18 rois dOAntais rhs ddnbr- 
vijs heEews loxupas ras dpas mpoceivar 
det kai abdxrous ras AaBds. The word, 
together with some kindred wrest- 
ling terms, was used of the union of 
the Democritean atoms: Plut. Moral. 
769¥F rais kar’ ’Emixovpov ddais kat 
mepirdoxais, comp. Damoxenus ap. 
Athen. 1028 kal cvpmdeKopéms ody! 
suppevors ddas. We find dupa used 
in the same sense of the wrestler’s 
grip, Plut. Fab. 23 dupara xa) daBds, 


and even of his gripping arms, Id. 
Alcib. 2. 

That apy in the sense of a band or 
ligament may have been a term of 
ancient physiology is suggested by an 
entry in Galen’s lexicon of words used 
by Hippocrates (Gal. xix p. 87): adas: 
Ta Gupata mapa Td aya, i.e. bands, 
from the verb ‘to bind’. At any rate 
it seems clear that the word could be 
used in the general sense of a band 
or fastening (from dmrw), and that 
we need not in our explanation of 
St Paul’s language start from a7 in 
the sense of ‘touch’. 

Lightfoot indeed, in his note on 
Col. ii 19, adopts the latter course, 
and seeks to bridge the gulf by means 
of certain passages of Aristotle. But 
Aristotle again and again contrasts 
apy ‘contact’ with cvpdvois ‘cohe- 
sion’; and in the most important of 
the passages cited he is not speaking 
of living bodies, but of certain dia- 
phanous’ substances, which some 
suppose to be diaphanous by reason 
of certain pores; de gen. et corr.i 8 
(p.- 326) ovre yap xara tas adas (i.e. 
‘at the points of contact’) évdéyerar 
Suévar dia trav Stahavav, ovte dia Tov 
mopev. In fact in Aristotle adn 
appears to mean touching without 
joining: hence e.g. in de caelo i 12 
(p. 280) he argues that contact can 
cease to be contact without ddopa. 

“Adn then may be interpreted as a 
general term for a band or fastening, 
which possibly may have been used 
in the technical sense of a ligament, 
and which in Col. ii 19 is elucidated 
through being linked by the vinculum 
of a common definite article with 
cvvieopos, a recognised physiological 
term. 

emtxopnyias| The word occurs again 
in Phil. i 19 d:a ris dyad Sejoews kal 
emtxopnyias Tov mvevparos Incov Xpio- 
tov, ‘through your prayer and the 
supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ’. 








IV 16] 


Commentators are wont to explain it 
as meaning ‘an abundant supply’, thus 
differentiating it from yopnyia, ‘a 
supply’. But this interpretation of 
the preposition in this word, as in 
eriyvoots, does not appear to be sub- 
stantiated by usage. 

The xopnyés supplied the means of 
putting a play on the Athenian stage. 
The verb xopryeiv soon came to mean 
‘to furnish’ or ‘supply’ in the widest 
sense. A little later the compound 
verb émxopnyeiv was similarly used. 
There is a tendency in later Greek to 
prefer compound to simple verbs, 
probably for no other cause than the 
greater fulness of sound. The force 
of the preposition, before it ceased to 
be felt, was probably that of direction, 
‘to supply to’: compare the Latin 
compounds with sub, such as sup- 
plere, subministrare: and see 2 Cor. 
ix 10 6 8€ émtyopnyév oréppa TO 
omeipovri, Gal. iii 5 6 odv éemyopnyar 
dpiv To Tvedpa. Hven if émyopnyjpara 
means ‘additional allowances’ in 
Athen. Detpnosoph. iv 8 (p. 1400), this 
does not prove a corresponding use 
for the other compounds: and in any 
case an ‘additional supply’ is some- 
thing quite different from an ‘abun- 
dant supply’. 

The present passage must be read 
in close connexion with Col. ii 19, 
where odpa...émtyopyyovpevoy offers a 
use of the passive (for the person 
‘supplied’) which is also commonly 
found with yopnycioba. But in what 
sense is the body ‘supplied’ by means 
of its bands and ligaments? It is 
usual to suppose that a supply of 
nutriment is intended, and the men- 
tion of ‘growth’ in the context appears 
to bear this out. But we cannot 
imagine that the Greek physicians 
held that nutriment was conveyed by 
the bands and ligaments, whose func- 
tion is to keep the limbs in position 
and check the play of the muscles 
(Galen iv pp. 2f.). Nor is there any 
reference to nutriment in the context 
of either passage: order and unity 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


187 


are the conditions of growth on which 
the Apostle is insisting. 

Aristotle, who does not employ the 
compound forms, frequently uses 
xopnyety and yxopnyia in contrast with 
mepuxévat and gdvais. In Pol, iv 1 
(p. 1288) he says that education has 
two pre-requisites, natural gifts and 
fortunate circumstances, dicis and 
xopnyia ruxnpa (a provision or equip- 
ment which depends on fortune), 
The best physical training will be 
that which is adapted to the body 
best framed by nature and best pro- 
vided or equipped (xcad\Atora meuKore 
Kat Kexopnynuevm): comp. iv II (p. 
1295). So again, vii 4 (p. 1325) ov 
yap olov Te modiTelay yevéoOar THY 
dpiotny avev cuppetpov xopnyias, 13 
(p. 1331) detrar yap kal xopryias tivds 
To (nv kados, Eth. Nic. x 8 (p. 1178) 
dofere & Gv [1H rod vod dpetn| Kal rijs 
€xTos yopnyias éml pixpov i) em €darrov 
deta Oat THs HOuKijs, 1 11 (p. IIO1) ri ody 
Kodver Aéyewy evOaipova Tov Kat’ apeThy 
Tedeiay évepyourra Kal Tois extos ayabois 
ixavas Keyopnynevoy, k.T.A.; and many 
more instances might be quoted. The 
limitation to a supply of food, where 
it occurs, comes from the context, and 
does not belong to the word itself, 
which is almost synonymous with 
katackevy, and differs from it mainly 
by suggesting that the provision or 
equipment is afforded from outside 
and not self-originated. 

This general meaning of provision 
or equipment is in place here. The 
body may properly be said to be 
equipped or furnished, as well as held 
together, by means of its bands and 
ligaments; and accordingly we may 
speak of ‘every band or ligament of 
its equipment or furniture’. The 
rendering of the Geneva Bible (1560), 
if a little clumsy, gives the true 
sense: ‘by euerie toynt, for the furnt- 
ture thereof’, But as the word 
‘equip’ does not belong to biblical 
English, we must perhaps be content 
with the rendering, ‘by every joint of 
its supply’. The Latin renders, ‘per 


188 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[IV 17 


pétpw évcs éxdoTov pépous THv alEnow TOV TwuaTos 
mouitat eis oikodouyny avTou évy ayary. 

21Totro obv Aéyw Kal mapTUpoua év Kupio, pyKETL 
Upas repiratew Kabeds Kal Ta EOvn wepimare: év parat- 


omnem iuncturam [some O.L. autho- 
rities have tactum]subministrationis’, 
which adequately represents the ori- 
ginal. 

kar’ évépyecavy] These words are to 
be taken closely with év pérp@ évos 
éxagrov pépovs. For the further de- 
finition of an anarthrous substantive 
by a prepositional clause, comp. v. 14 
év mavoupyia mpos tiv peOodiay ris 
mAavns. It is just possible that we 
are here again in presence of a tech- 
nical term of Greek physiology. 
Galen (de facult. natural. i. 2, 4, 5) 
distinguishes between épyov, ‘work 
done’, ‘result’, and évépyesa, ‘the 
working process’, ‘function’: the 
impulse that produces the évépyeva 
being dvvayis. The meaning would 
accordingly be ‘in accordance with 
function in the full measure of each 
several part’, ‘as each part duly fulfils 
its proper function’, At the same 
time we must not lose sight of the 
strong meaning of évépyea in St Paul: 
see the detached note on éevepyeiv and 
its cognates. 

Thv avénow x.t.r.] ‘maketh the 
increase of the body’. The distance 
of the nominative, rav ro cdpa, is the 
cause of the redundant rod caparos. 
All that was required was avée, but 
the resolved phrase lends a further 
impressiveness : comp. Col. ii 19 avée 
THY avénow Tov Geov. 

eis oixodopuny adrod | ‘unto the build- 
ing thereof’. He recurs to the meta- 
phor which he has already so used in 
©. 12 (els olxodouny rod oodparos), and 
has again touched upon in ovvappo- 
Aoyovpevor. 

€v dyarn| Once again this phrase 
closes a sentence: see the notes on 
i 4, iii 17. 


17—24. ‘This then is my meaning 
and my solemn protestation. Your 
conduct must no longer be that of 
the Gentile world. They drift without 
a purpose in the darkness, strangers 
to the Divine life; for they are igno- 
rant, because their heart is blind and 
dead: they have ceased to care what 
they do, and so have surrendered 
themselves to outrageous living, de- 
filing their own bodies and wronging 
others withal. How different is the 
lesson you have learned: I mean, the 
Christ: for is not He the message you 
have listened to, the school of your 
instruction? In the person of Jesus 
you have truth embodied. And the 
purport of your lesson is that you must 
abandon the old life once and for all; 
you must strip off the old man, that 
outworn and perishing garment fouled 
by the passions of deceit: you must 
renew your youth in the spiritual 
centre of your being; you must clothe 
yourselves with the new man, God’s 
fresh creation in His own image, 
fashioned in righteousness and holi- 
ness which spring from truth’. 

17. paptupopa]) ‘TZ testify’ or ‘pro- 
test’. See Lightfoot on Gal. v 3 and 
1 Thess. ii 11 (WWotes on Epp. p. 29). 
Maprupeiy ‘to bear witness’ and pap- 
tupeicba ‘to be borne witness to’ are 
to be distinguished in the New Testa- 
ment, as in classical Greek, from pap- 
tupecOa, Which means first ‘to call to 
witness’ and then absolutely ‘to pro- 
test’ or ‘asseverate’. 

ev kupio| See the exposition on 2. I. 

vpas] emphatic, as vpeis in v. 20. 

mepurareiy| See the note on ii 2. 

ta €6vm| The alternative reading, 
Ta Nowra vn, has but a weak attesta- 
tion: see the note on various readings. 





i ee 


IV 18, 19] 


: $ S Se 18 
OTHTL TOV VOOS AUTWY, 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


189 


5) , ~ 4 
EOKOTWMEVOL TH SLavola, dvTES 


> / ~ o ~ ~~ > 

amnAoTpiwpevor THs Cwns Tov Oeod, dia THY a&yvo.ay 
\ iy ~ | \ Cn 

THY ovoav év avTois dia THV TWPWOW Tis kapolas 


eae 19 ,¢/ 2 iA e \ / ca 
avTw@v, “orTives amnAynKkoTEes éavTo’s TapédwKay TH 
> / om, iy / 2 , , i 
aoehyeia eis Epyaciav axabapoias macns év Teovesia. 


St Paul’s usage varies: (1) they had 
not ceased to be ¢6vy as contrasted 
With "Iovdaio, Rom. xi 13 dpiv dé Aéywo 
tois €Oveow, also xv 16 and Eph. ii 
I1; yet (2) in a sense they were no 


‘longer ¢6vn, I Cor. xii 2 oldare Gre dre 


€Ovm fre x.r.A. Here at any rate the 
meaning is plain: ‘there is a conduct 
which characterises the Gentile world: 
that you have done with’. 

paraérnt:] St Paul uses the word 
again only in Rom. viii 20, rq yap 
paratornte 7 KTiows Umerayyn. It suggests 
either absence of purpose or failure 
to attain any true purpose: comp. 
Keel. i 2, etc. paraorns paraorynrev. 
We have similar language used of the 
Gentile world in Rom. i 21, éuara- 
O@noav év rois Svadoyiopois avtav Kal 
exkotiaOn 7 dovveros avtay Kapdia. 

18. dyvres| to be taken with dmaA- 
Aorpi@pévor, as in Col. i 21 kat dpas 
more Ovras amnAdoTpiopevous k.T.A. TO 
join it with éoxorwpévor would give us 
a very unusual construction; whereas 
amnAdorpiopevoe is used almost as a 
noun, see the note on ii 12. Accord- 
ingly ‘being alienated from the life of 
God’ does not imply that they had at 
one time enjoyed that life: it means 
simply being aliens from it. 

tis Cans tov Oeov] the Divine life 
communicated to man: to this the 
Gentiles were strangers, for they were 
&eou, ii 12. For the proclamation of 
the Gospel as ‘life’ see Acts v 20 
qwavra Ta pnuara THs Cons TavTNS. 

tiv ovcav| This is not to be taken 
as emphatic, as it would have to be if 
we punctuated after ey atrois. It 
introduces the cause of the ignorance. 
They have no life, because they have 
no knowledge: and, again, no know- 


ledge because their heart is incapable 
of perception. 

mapwoww] Idpwors ris kapdias is to 
be distinguished from oxAnpoxapdia, 
as ‘obtuseness’ from ‘obstinacy’. See 
the additional note on mdpwors. 

19. dmndyykores] They are ‘past 
Seeling’ ; i.e. they have ceased to care. 
*Amadyeiv (‘to cease to feel pain for’, 
Thuc. ii 61) comes to have two mean- 
ings: (1) despair, as in Polyb. i 35 5 
To 5€ mpodhavads memrakds Gpdnv mori- 
Tevpa Kal Tas dmndynkvias Wuyas tov 
Suvdpewy (sc. militum) émt rd kpeirrov 
nyayev, and so elsewhere; (2) reck- 
lessness, Polyb. xvi 127 T6 yap packew 
eva TOY copdrov ev port TiWéueva ji) 
qoueiy oKiay amndynkvias éotl Wuxis, 
i.e. such a statement shews a perfectly 
reckless mind. ‘ Desperation’ and 
‘recklessness of most unclean living’ 
(misspelt ‘wretchlessness’ in Article 
xvii) are moods which stand not far 
apart. The Latin rendering ‘despe- 
yantes’ does not necessarily imply the 
variant attHAtikotec (for attHArH- 
KoTec) which is found in D,(Gs). 

doedyeia] The meaning of doédyeva 
is, first, outrageous conduct of any 
kind; then it comes to mean specially 
a wanton violence; and then, in the 
later writers, wantonness in the sense 
of lewdness. See Lightfoot on Gal. 
v 19: ‘a man may be dxaéapros and 
hide his sin; he does not become 
doedyjs until he shocks public de- 
cency ’. 

épyaciay] From the early meaning 
of épyov, ‘work in the fields’ (comp. 
Hesiod’s Epya kat 7juépax) comes épya- 
rns ‘a field-labourer’, as in Matt. ix 37, 
etc., and épyateoOa, which is properly 
‘to till the ground’. The verb is then 


190 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[IV 20—22 


a“ e / \ / / eee. 
yueis O€ OVX OUTWS éuabeTE TOY xpLOTOV, * El YE aUTOV 


on \ af / 
HKkovoaTEe Kal év avT@ edidayOnTe, Kabws Exrw adrnOeLa 


~ lod / 
év To "Inoov, *drobérba 


widened to mean the producing of 
any result by means of labour. ’Epya- 
cia is used in Acts xvi 16, 19, xix 24f. 
in the sense of business or the gains 
of business; and still more generally 
in Luke xii 58 dds épyaciay (=da 
operam) amn\daxOa dx’ avrod. 

In the New Testament épyaleoOa, 
like épyov, is transferred to moral 
action (as épyatecOar To ayaOov Rom. 
ii 10, caxdv xiii 10). Here eis épyaciav 
maons axabapoias is a resolved expres- 
sion used for convenience of construc- 
tion instead of épyatecOa: macay dxa- 
Gapciav. It means no more than 
‘performance’ or ‘practice’: ‘in opera- 
tionem omnis immunditiae’. 

év mreovetia] ‘with greediness’, or 
‘rapacity’; i.e. ‘with entire disregard 
of the rights of others’, as Lightfoot 
explains it in his note on Col. iii 5. 
TI\coveEia often means more than 
‘covetousness’: mecovexreiv is used 
in the sense of ‘to defraud’ in the 
special matter of adultery (év ra 
mpaypart) in 1 Thess. iv 6. Com- 
menting on év m\eoveEia Origen (Cra- 
mer, ad loc.) says peta Tod mAcovexreiv" 
exeivous b€ (fors. 57) dv tods yapous 
vobevouev, and below dxaGapaiav dé év 
Treove&ia THY potxeiav olouat eiva, See 
further the notes on v 3, 5 below. 

20. épudOere| The expression par- 
Oavew Tov xpiorov has no exact paral- 
lel; for pavOave is not used with an 
accusative of the person who is the 
object of knowledge. But it may be 
compared with other Pauline expres- 
sions, such aS roy xpiordy zapada- 
Beiv (Col. ii 6), evddcacGat (Gal. iii 27), 
yvova (Phil. iii 10), and indeed dkovew 
in the next verse, which does not 
refer to hearing with the bodily ear. 

The aorists at this point are not to 
be pressed to point to the moment of 
conversion: they indicate the past 


lad A \ / 
Uuas KaTa THY TpOTEpay 


without further definition; and, as the 
context does not fix a particular mo- 
ment, they may be rendered in Eng- 
lish either by the simple past tense 
or, perhaps more naturally, by the 
perfect. 

21. el ye avrov jKovcare| See the 
note on iii 2. Ei ye does not imply 
a doubt, but gives emphasis. It is 
closely connected with avrov, which 
itself is in an emphatic position: ‘if 
indeed it is He whom ye have heard’. 

ev avr@| ‘in Him’ as the sphere of 
instruction; not ‘by Him’ (A. V.) as 
the instructor. 

kaOeés xr.A.] This clause is ex- 
planatory of the unfamiliar phrase- 
ology which has been used. For ri 
GAnOevay pavOdavew, dxovew, ev TH GAn- 
Geia SiddoxecOa, would present no 
difficulty. Truth is found in the per- 
son of Jesus, who is the Christ: He 
is Himself the truth (John xiv 6): 
hence we can be said to ‘learn Him’. 

d\nbeva| In the older MSS no dis- 
tinction was made between dAndeva 
and ddnéeia: so that it is possible to 
read xaOas éoriv adnbeia, év TH "Inood, 
‘as He is in truth, in Jesus’. Or re- 
taining the nominative ddjdea, and 
still making 6 ypiords the subject, we 
may render ‘as He is truth in Jesus’. 
Of these two constructions the former 
is preferable; but neither suits the 
context so well as that which has been 
given above. 

22. dmobécGa] The clause intro- 
duced by the infinitive is epexegetical 
of the general thought of the preced- 
ing sentence: ‘this is the lesson that 
ye have been taught—that ye put off’ 
etc. “AroéécOa, standing in contrast 
with évdicacba, is equivalent to the 
drexdvcacOa of the parallel passage, 
Col. iii 9 f., drexdvcdpevor Tov madatov 
avOpanov ovv tais mpdéeow adrov, Kal 


Ped te ir ay.” a A 


i ce ee ee 


ee ee ee 


a Se ee 











IV 23, 24] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


I9QI 


dvactpopny Tov wadadv avOpwrov Tov Pbepduevov 
kata Tas ériOupias ths amarns, Bdvaveovcba dé TW 
TVEUMATL TOU Vvoos UuwV, “Kal évdvcacba Tov KaLvOV 
avOpwrov tov Kata Oeov xricbévTa év Sikatoovvy Kal 


€ / lay > 4 
OoLloTnTL THs aAnOelas. 


evdvoduevot Tov véeov. The metaphor 
is that of stripping off one garment 
to put on another. Compare also 
Rom. xiii 12 droddpeba otv ra Epya 
TOU oxoTous, evdvawpeba Sé Ta Sada TOU 
paros. 

dvactpopyv| Comp. dvecrpadnuerv 
more in ii 3; and for dvacrpehecbar 
as a synonym of zepurareivy see the 
note on ii 2. 

madauv avOpwmov| Comp. Rom. 
vi 6 6 madatos yay avOpwmos cvve- 
otavpabn. Tadaics stands in contrast 
alike to xavvés (v. 24), new in the sense 
of fresh, and to véos (Col. iii 10), new 
in the sense of young. The ‘old man’ 
is here spoken of as Pdeipopevos, in 
process of decay, as well as morally 
corrupt; we need in exchange a per- 
petual renewal of youth (dvaveotc6at), 
as well as a fresh moral personality 
(kawos avOpwmos). The interchange 
of tenses deserves attention: dzoé- 
oOa...pbeipopevov...dvaveodo Oat. ..evdv- 
cac6a. Viewed asa change of gar- 
ments the process is momentary; 
viewed as an altered life it is con- 
tinuous. 

23. mvevpare Tod voos| The mind 
had been devoid of true purpose (éy 
parawTnt. Tov vods, v. 17), for the 
heart had been dull and dead (614 ryv 
meapocw ths kapdias, v. 18). The spi- 
ritual principle of the mind must 
acquire a new youth, susceptible of 
spiritual impressions. The addition 
of rod voos vpav indicates that the 
Apostle is speaking of the spirit in 
the individual: in itself dvaveoctoda 
TS mvevpatre would have been am- 
biguous in meaning. We may com- 
pare his use of ro oda Tis capKos 
avrod in speaking of the earthly 


body of our Lord, Col. i 22, ii 11. 

24. xara Oedv] ‘after God’: God 
Himself is the réos after which the 
new man iscreated. The allusion is to 
Gen. i 27 kar’ eixdva Oeod émoinoey 
avrév, the language of which is more 
closely followed in Col. iii 10 rov véov 
TOV dvakawoupevov eis emiyywow Kat 
eixdva Tov KTioavTos avror. 

dovdrntt| For the usual distinction 
between dovdrns and dixatoovvy, as 
representing respectively duty towards 
God and duty towards men (Plato, 
Philo), see Lightfoot’s note on 1 Thess. 
ii 10 dciws kat Sixaiws (Notes on Epp. 
p. 27 f.). The combination was a 
familiar one; comp. Wisd, ix 3, Luke 
i726. 

dAnbeias| to be taken with both the 
preceding substantives, ‘in righteous- 
ness and holiness which are of the 
truth’; not as A. V. ‘in righteousness 
and true holiness’, There is an im- 
mediate contrast with ‘the lusts of 
deceit’, xara ras émibupias ths dmarns 
v. 22; just as in v. 15 adnOevovres 
stands in contrast with rjs mAayns. 
Truth as applied to conduct (see also 
v. 21) is a leading thought of this 
section, and gives the starting-point 
for the next. 

2s—V. 2. ‘I have said that you 
must strip off the old and put on the 
new, renounce the passions of deceit 
and live the life of truth. Begin 
then by putting away lying: it is con- 
trary to the truth of the Body that 
one limb should play another false. 
See that anger lead not to sin; if 
you harbour it, the devil will find a 
place among you. Instead of steal- 
ing, let a man do honest work, that 
he may have the means of giving to 


192 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[IV 25—27 


\ -~ nw , 
*5Ai0 azmobguevo. TO Weidos Aadrcite AAHOEIAN 


e \ a ’ > rf) e/ p) \ p) 7 
EKACTOC META TOY TAHCION AYTOY, OTL EO MEV aNXAn- 


Awy péAn. 


> 1 ‘ c 4 
®3prizecoe kal MH dmapTanete’ O HALOS 


la a \ 
pn émidveTw él Tapopyiou@ vuov, "unde didote Té7rov 


others. Corrupt talk must give way 
to good words, which may build up 
your corporate life, words of grace in 
the truest sense: otherwise you will 
pain the Holy Spirit, the seal of your 
present unity and your future re- 
demption. The bitter temper must 
be exchanged for the sweet—for kind- 
ness and tenderheartedness and for- 
givingness. God in Christ has for- 
given you all, and you must copy 
Him, for you are His children whom 
He loves. In love you too must live, 
such love as Christ’s, which is the 
love of sacrifice’. 

25. admo0éuevor| repeated from az- 
ofécOa, v. 22; but the metaphor 
of the garment is dropped, and the 
sense is now more general, not ‘ put- 
ting off’ but ‘putting away’. So in 
Col. iii 8 vuvi S€ drrobecbe Kat tpeis Ta 
mwayvra, opynv, x.t.d., before the meta- 
phor has been introduced by dzexév- 
oduevot (0.9). We cannot with pro- 
priety give the same rendering here 
and in % 22, as ‘putting away’ a gar- 
ment does not in English signify put- 
ting it off. 

To Weddos| The word is suggested 
by rjs ddnGeias in the preceding verse; 
but it is used not in its more general 
sense of ‘falsehood’, but in the nar- 
rower sense of ‘lying’, as is shewn 
by the next words. Comp. John viii 
44 drav adj Tb Yeddos, K.7.-A. 

Aadeire x.7.A.] An exact quotation 
from Zech. viii 16, except that there 
we have mpds tov for pera tov. In 
Col. iii 9 the precept pi) Wedderde eis 
ddAnAovs occurs, but without the 
reason here given, which is specially 
suggested by the thought of this 
epistle. 

26. dpyitecbe «.r.d.] Ps. iv 4, LXX.; 
where we render ‘Stand in awe and 


sin not’ (but R. V. marg. has ‘Be ye 
angry’). The Hebrew means literally 
‘tremble’: so Aquila (kAoveiode): but 
it is also used of anger. 

6 jAwos x.7.A.| Grotius and others 
cite the remarkable parallel from 
Plut. de amore fratr. 488 B eira 
pupetoOar rovs IvOayopixovs, ot yéver 
pnOev mpoonxovres AAA Kowvod oyou 
peréxovres, elrore mpoaxOciev eis howdo- 
pias or dpyis, mplv 7 Tov Avov Sdvar 
ras Se&tas éuBdddovres aAAnAos Kal 
dotracauevot SueAvovro. For the form 
of the precept compare Deut. xxiv 
15 av@npepoy amoddces tov picOov 
avtov (SC. Tov mévnros), ovK émidvoeTat 
6 fAuos en’ aire: and Evang. Petri 
§§ 2, 5, and the passages quoted by 
Dr Swete ad loc. 

mapopyion@| The word does not 
appear to be found outside biblical 
Greek, although mapopyifopa: (pass.) 
sometimes occurs. In the Lxx. it 
always (with the exception of a 
variant in A) has an active meaning, 
‘provocation’, whereas sapogvopos 
is used in the passive sense, ‘indigna- 
tion’: mapopyifew and rapogivew are 
of common occurrence and often ren- 
der the same Hebrew words. Here 
mapopytopos is the state of feeling 
provocation, ‘wrath’. Tapopyifew oc- 
curs below, vi 4. 

27. didore rorov]| In Rom. xii 19 dére 
rorov TH opyn the context (‘ Vengeance 
is Mine’) shews that the meaning is 
‘make way for the Divine wrath’. 
The phrase occurs in Ecclus. iv 5 py 
dds térov avOpdr@ KatapdacacOai ce, 
xix 17 d0s rémov vou@ “Yiorov (give 
room for it to work), xxxviii I2 xal 
larp@ dds rorov (allow him scope). It 
is found in the later Greek writers, 
as in Plutarch, Moral. 462 B Set de 
pyre maigovras avtn (8c. TH Opyn) Si- 


- oe 


IV 28, 29] 


o~ é 
T@ SiaBorAw. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


193 


8 4 / / a 
0 KAETTWY MNnKEeTL KAETTETW, MaANOD 


A / ~ ° 
d€ KomiaTw épyaCouevos Tals yepoivy TO ayabdv, iva 
f Z, = / of lon 

Exn meTadovat TH xXpElav ExovTL. mas Adyos campos 


lanl / lo \ 
€K TOU OTOMATOS UUoY MY 
\ \ \ a 
ayalos mpos oikodouny Tis 


dova rorrov: but it is perhaps almost a 
Latinism: comp. locum dare (Cie. al.). 

diaBcrko] There is no ground for 
interpreting this with some of the 
older commentators as meaning here 


‘a slanderer’: for although the word 





is not used by St Paul outside this 
epistle and the Pastoral Epistles, its 
sense is unmistakeable in vi. 11. 

28. oxKAérrov|] The man who has 
been given to stealing, as distinguished 
from 6 xAémrns, a common thief, and 
also from 6 xAéyas, one who has stolen 
on a particular occasion. 

komidr@ x.t-A.| Compare I Cor. iv 
I2 Komi@pev éepyatouevor tats idias 
xepoiv, and 1 Thess. iv. 11 épydleoOat 
tais xepolv vyov. On the other hand 
we have in Rom. ii 10 and Gal. vi 10 
the phrase ¢pyd{eo Oa: 76 ayaOov (which 
is to be compared with éepyateoOar rH 
dvopiay, frequent in the Psalms and 
found in Matt. vii 23). Here the 
combination of the two phrases gives 
an effective contrast with kere. 
For the addition of idiais see the note 
on various readings. 

29. Adyos aampds] Sampos pri- 
marily means ‘rotten’ or ‘corrupt’: 
but in a derived sense it signifies 
‘effete, and so ‘worthless. It is 
often joined with zadads, which it 


fjapproaches so nearly in meaning that 
fit can even be used in a good sense of 


‘old and mellow’ wines. Ordinarily, 
however, it signifies ‘old and worn 
out’: see the passages collected by 


§ Wetstein on Matt. vii 18. In the 


— 


Gospels it stands as the antithesis of 


“dyaOos and xados: Matt. vii 17 f., xii 
433, Luke vi 43, of the ‘bad’ as con- 


trasted with the ‘good’ tree and 
fruit; Matt. xiii 48 of the ‘bad’ as 


EPHES.” 





éxrropeveo Ow, adda el Tis 
/ Ie a ~ 
xpetas, iva 66 yapw Tots 


contrasted with the ‘good’ fish (r& 
kaha). In these places the word is 
used in the sense of ‘worthless’: and 
the original meaning of ‘corruptness’ 
has entirely disappeared. It does not. 
follow that the word as used by St 
Paul means only ‘idle’ or ‘worthless’, 
like the paya dpyov of Matt. xii 36. 
The context requires a stronger sense; 
the sin rebuked is on a level with 
lying and stealing. If it does not go 
so far as the aicypodoyia of Col. iii 8, 
it certainly includes the pwpodoyia 
and. evrpamehia which are appended 
to aicypérns in Eph. v 4. 

el ris dyads] For et ris, ‘whatever’, 
comp. Phil. iv. 8. *Aya6cs is morally 
good, in contrast to campos, and not 
merely ‘good for a purpose,’ which 
would be expressed by evGeros. Com- 
pare Rom. xv 2 ékaoros jpav TO 
mAnotov dpeckérw eis TO ayaboy mpos 
oikodopnv. 

Ths xpetas| Xpeia is (1) need, (2) 
an occasion of need, (3) the matter in 
hand. For the last sense compare 
Acts vi 3 ovs xataorjocopev emt Tis 
xpelas ravrns, and Tit. iii14. Wetstein 
quotes Plut. Pericl. 8 o Ilepixdjjs rept 
Tov Noyov evrAaBijs Hv, Gor det mpds Td 
Bia Badifwv nixero Trois Oeois pndé 
Anya pndev éxmecev Akovros avrov mpos 
Ti mpokerérny xpelavy avappoorov. 
The meaning here is, ‘for building 
up as the matter may require’, or 
‘as need may be’. 

The Oid Latin had ad aedifica- 
tionem jfidei, and the bilingual MSS 
D,*G, read ricrews for xpeias. Jerome 
substituted ‘opportunitatis’ for fidet’. 
Further evidence is given in the note 
on various readings. 

xapw] For xdpis in respect of 


13 


194 


/ 
QKOUVOUG LD. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[IV 30—32 


30 \ \ 4 \ n A JS os 
Kae BN AUTELTE TO ORS eae TO ayltov TOU 


Oeot, é&v @ éodpayioOnre Els ripepay drohuTpurews. 
traca mikpia Kal Oupos Kat opyn Kal Kpavyn Kal Bra- 


opnpia adpbytw ap vpov ov Taon Kakia, 


speech compare Col. iv 6 6 Aeyos 
dpav mavrore év xapirt, Gare riprupévos 
(seasoned with the true ‘salt’ of 
speech), and Col. iii 16 @dats mvevpa- 
TiKais év yxapite K.T.A. Compare also 
the contrast between evrpamedia and 
evxapioria below in v 4; and see the 
detached note on yapis. We cannot 
reproduce in English the play upon 
the two meanings of ydpis in this 
passage. 

30. pa) humeire] Compare Isa. xiii. 
10 mapwévvay 76 mvedpa TO d-ytov avTov. 
On our present passage is founded 
the remarkable injunction of the 
Shepherd of Hermas in regard to 
Avan (Mand. x). The interpretation 
there given is capricious and purely 
individualistic : Gpov odv dmb ceavrod 
Tiv Avmnv kal pi) OdNjTBe TO mvedpa Td 
dywv Td é€v gol KaTotKovy...Td ‘yap 
mvevpa Tov Geov TO Sobev eis THY cdpka 
TauTny Avy ovx dmopEeper OVSE TTEVO- 
xepiav. evdvoa ovv tiv fdapdryra, 
x.t.A. To St Paul on the contrary the 
Spirit is the bond of the corporate 
life, and that ‘grieves’ Him which 
does not tend to the ‘building-up’ of 
the Christian society. We may com- 
pare Rom. xiv 15 ef yap dua Bpopa 
6 adekpds cov Avera, ovKére Kata 
dydnnv wepurareis: and Jerome on 
Ezek. xviii 7 (Vall. v 207): ‘in euan- 
gelio quod iuxta Hebraeos Nazaraei 
legere consueuerunt inter maxima 
ponitur crimina, gui fratris sui spi- 
ritum contristauerit’. That which 
tends not to build but to cast down, 
that which grieves the brother, grieves 
the Spirit which is alike in him and 
in you. 

eahpayicOnre | The whole clause is 
an echo of i 13 f. éeoppayicOyre T? 
mvevpatt THs émayyehias TH ayig.. veils 


39 iver Oe 


The 


> , a 
amoAuTpwow THs TeEpuToceEas. 


Spirit was the seal of the complete — 


incorporation of the Gentiles. Com- 


pare further 1 Cor. xii 13 xat yap ev 


Ud 6 a 
évl mvevpare teis mavtes eis Ev Topa 
> , ow > cod * ? 
éBarricOnpev, etre "Iovdaioe etre "EXAn- 
VES, K.T.A. 


31. 


mupia] The three other pas- | 


sages in which this word occurs” 


borrow their phraseology directly or 
indirectly from the Old Testament 
(Acts viii 23, Rom. iii 14, Heb. xii 15). 
Here the usage is genuinely Greek, 


and may be compared with Col. iii 19. 
Aristotle — 


pe) muxpaiverOe mpos avras. 
in discussing various forms of anger 
says (Hth. Nic. iv 11): of pev ovv 
dpyidor taxéws pev opyitorrat, Kal ois 
ov Sei, kal ef’ ois ov Sei, kal adXdov 7 
dei- madvovra dé rayéws...o§ dé mixpot 
dvadiddvrot, kal moby xpovov dpyitov- 
Tat* Katéxovor yap tov Ouyov. It 
appears, then, that mxpia is an em- 
bittered and resentful spirit which 
refuses reconciliation. 

Oupos x..A.] Compare Col. iii 8 
épynv, Ovpov, Kaxiav, Braodnpiay, ai- 


oxporoyiay, and see Lightfoot’s notes ~ 
The Stoics distin-— 
guished between Ovyds, the outburst ~ 
of passion, and dpy7, the settled feel-~ 


on these words. 


ing of anger. 


xpavyy | ‘outery’: but, here only, in 


the bad sense of clamouring against 
another. Its meaning is defined by 
its position after dpyj, and before 
Braogpnpia (‘evil speaking’ or ‘slander 


= 


—s a> 





: 





mpdgas. 


only in r Oor. vi 15 and Col. it 


| 


kaxia] ‘malice’, not ‘wickedness’ 








IV 32] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 





195 


dé €éls adAAnAous xpnorot, ebomharyxvo01, XapeCopevor 
€avTois KaOws Kai 6 Beds év Xpiora éxapicato viv. 


comp. Tit. iii 3 év xaxia kal POdv 
dudyovres. 

32. xpnoroi «r.A.] The parallel 
passage, Col. iii 12, has: évddoacde... 
omhayxva oikrippod, xpnorornta, Ta- 
mrewodppootrny, mpadryra, paxpobupiay, 
dvexopevot aAndwv, kai yapiCopevor 
€avTois, €dy Tis mpos Tiva €xyn pour: 
kaOes kal 6 Kupwos éxapicaro vpiv, odTw 
kai vets. In our epistle the demand 
for humility and forbearance has been 
made before (iv 2); kindness, tender- 
ness, forgivingness are now enforced. 

evorAayxvo.| The word occurs 
again only in I Pet. iii 8. It is not 
found in the txx, but occurs in the 
Prayer of Manasses (». 7) which is one 
of the Canticles appended to the 
Greek Psalter. It is also found, with 
its substantive evomdayxvia, in the 
Testam. xii patriarch. Hippocrates 
uses it in a literal sense of a healthy 
condition of the omAdyxva, as he also 
uses peyaddom\ayxvos of their enlarge- 
ment by disease. Euripides, Rhes. 
192, has evomdayxvia metaphorically 
for ‘a stout heart’. The use of the 
word for tenderness of heart would 
thus seem to be not classical, but 
Jewish in origin, as Lightfoot suggests 
in regard to omdayyvitecda in his 
note on Phil. i 8. Woddvomdayyvos 
occurs in Jas. v 11, with a variant 
moAvevorAayxvos: see Harnack’s note 
on Herm. V7s. i 3 2. 

éavrois] For the variation of the 
pronoun after the preceding eis adA7- 
Aovs see Lightfoot’s note on Col. iii 13 
dvexopevot GAAnAwy Kal xapiCopevor Eav- 
trois. To the instances there cited 
should be added Luke xxiii 12 éye- 
vovro Sé¢ didot...per GAAjAwv: Tpov- 
apxov yap ev éxOpa bytes pos avrovs, 
where the change is made for variety’s 
sake (Blass Gram. N. T. § 48, 9). 
The same reason suffices to explain 
) the variation here. If éavrois is the 
more appropriate in the second place, 


it is so on account of the clause which 
follows: they among themselves must 
do for themselves what God has done 
Jor them. 

Origen, who noted the variation, 
was led by it to interpret yapifopevor 
in the sense of ‘giving’ as God has 
‘given’ to us, as in Rom. viii 32 més 
oxi kal civ aired Ta mavra Hiv xapi- 
oera; The kindness and _ tender- 
heartedness which we shew eis dA\7- 
Aous, he says, is in fact shewn rather 
to ourselves, dia TO cvTTdpovs mas 
eivat.. Tava d€ éavrois xapifopeba, 6 ooa 
kal 6 Oeds nyiv év Xpior@ €xapicaro. 
But the parallel in Col. iii 13, where 
€dv Tis mpos Tia €xn poudyy is added, 
is in itself decisive against this view. 
The Latin rendering ‘donuntes... 
donauit’ lends it no support, as may 
be seen at once from Col. ii 13 ‘do- 
nantes uobis omnia delicta’, a use of 
donare which is Ciceronian. 

év Xpioré] ‘in Christ’, not ‘for 
Christ’s sake’ as in A.V. The expres- 
sion is intentionally brief and preg- 
nant. Compare 2 Cor. v 19 Oeds Av 
év Xpior@ Koopov Kata\\acowy éavTe, 
where the omission of the definite 


' articles, frequent in pointed or pro- 


verbial sayings, has the effect of pre- 
senting this as a concise summary of 
the truth (6 Adyos ris KaradAayijs). 


In Col. iii 13 we have simply 6 kupios 


(or 6 Xpiords). Here however the 
mention of 6 6eds enables the Apostle 
to expand his precept and to say yi- 
veoOe ovv pupnral Tov Oeod K.T.X. 

éxapicaro| ‘hath forgiven’. ‘ For- 
gave’ (Col. iii 13 A.V.) is an equally 
permissible rendering. It is an error 
to suppose that either is more faithful 
than the other to the sense of the 
aorist, which, unless the context 
decides otherwise, represents an in- 
definite past. 

vyuiv|] On the variants here and in 
v 2 see the note on various readings. 


I2—2 


196 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[V 1, 2 


> qn lan) / > 4 

V. teyiverOe ovv pupntal Tov Oeov, ws TEKVa ayarnTa, 

~ / \ \ ¢ \ > / 

"Kal mepimateite ey ayamn, KaOws Kal 6 xpioToOs nYya- 
r / \ e \ e od 

awnoev vuas Kal wapédwKey EavTOv UmEp UEwY TP OC- 


POPpAaN 


V. 1. pupnrai] Again and again 
we find in St Paul’s epistles such 
expressions as pupytat nov (1 Thess. 
i 6), pounral pov (1 Cor. iv 16, xi 1). 
pupeioOa yas (2 Thess. iii 7, 9). 
Here he boldly bids his readers 
‘follow God’s example’, ‘copy God’. 
Comp. Ign. Eph. 1 pupnral dvres Oeod, 
Trall. t eipav pas ds yvov pupnras 
évras Oeov. 

réxva ayarnra| ‘as His beloved chil- 
dren’. The epithet leads the way to 
the further precept kai mepimareire ev 
ayarn. 

2. mapédoxev| The closest parallels 
are in &% 25 xa@ds kal 6 ypioros Hya- 
moev THY ekkAnoiay kai éavrov Trapédo- 
Kev vrép avras, and Gal. ii 20 rod viod 
Tov Geov Tov ayamnoavrés pe Kal mapa- 
Sovros éavrov drép ¢uod. But we may 
also compare Gal. i 4 rod. Sdvros éavrév 
imép TOY duaptiav jyov, and in the 
Pastoral Epistles 6 dods éavréy avti- 
Avtpov drép mavrey (1 Tim. ii 6), és 
edwxey €avtov vrep nov (Tit. ii 14). 
In Rom. viii 32 the action is ascribed 
to the Father, imép judy mavrev mapé- 
dwxey avréy, and in Rom. iv 25 we 
have the verb in the passive, ds mape- 
806n Sia ta waparrépara juorv. In 
the last two passages, as in the fre- 
quent occurrences of the word in the 
Gospels, there is probably a reference 
to Isa. liii 9, 12. It is to be noted 
that in none of these passages is any 
allusion to the idea of sacrifice added, 
as there is in the present case. 

vpov] For the variant jyév see the 
note on various readings. 

mpoogopay kai Ovoiav| These words 
are found in combination in Ps. xxxix 
(xl) 7 6voiav Kai rpoodopay ovK 4OeX7- 
cas (quoted in Heb. x 5, 8). Ipoo- 
dopa is very rare in the Lxx (apart 
from Ecclus.), whereas 6vcia is ex- 


KAl OYCIAN TW ew e€ic OCMHN 


EY WAIAC. 


ceedingly common. St Paul uses spoo- 
dopa again only in speaking of ‘the 
offering of the Gentiles’, Rom. xv. 16: 
6vcia he employs again four times 
only (once of heathen sacrifices). It is 
therefore probable that here he bor- 
rows the words, half-consciously at 
least, from the Psalm. 

eis oopiy evodias] "Oocpy is found 
in the literal sense in John xii 3. 
Otherwise it occurs only in St Paul 
and in every case in connexion with 
evodia, Which again is confined to his 
epistles. The passages are 2 Cor. ii 
14—I16 ri dopiy Tis yvdoews avo 
davepoovre 80 judy év ravti tor@: bre 
Xpiscrod evwdia eopev TH Oe@ Ev Tois 
catopevos Kal év Tois amoAAupévots: 
ois pev oopi) ex Oavarov «7d., and 
Phil. iv. 18 wemAnpopat SeEduevos mapa 
’Eragpodirov ra trap’ vpav, dopiy evo- 


dias, Ovoiay dexryy, evdpeotov TG eg, 
where the wording is closely parallel 


to that of the present passage. The 


Apostle is still employing Old Testa-— 
ment language: dcpr edodias, or eis 
dopny edvodias, occurs about forty times © 
in the Pentateuch and four times in 
The fact that he uses the 


Ezekiel. 
metaphor with equal freedom of the 


preaching of the Gospel and of the 


gifts of the Philippians to himself 
should warn us against pressing it too 
strongly to a doctrinal use in the 
present passage. 


Jerome, doubtless reproducing Ori- 


gen, comments as follows: ‘Qui pro 


aliorum salute usque ad sanguinem — 


contra peccatum dimicat, ita ut et 


animam suam tradat pro eis, iste 
ambulat in caritate, imitans Christum 
qui nos in tantum dilexit ut crucem — 


pro salute omnium sustineret. quo- 
modo enim ille se tradidit pro nobis, 
sic et iste pro quibus potest libenter 


\ 
7 
{ 


4 
4 





V 3, 44) 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


197 


Tlopveta d€ kai dxaBapoia maca nf TrEovezia pnde 


? / 6 ? foe a] \ / eee 4 \ > vf 
Ovomacer @ €v uly, KaUWs mTpETTEL ayiols, *kal aloypo- 

\ / \ > Vs aA > } 5) \ 
TNS Kal pwoodoyia yn evTpamreNla, & OUK avnkev, aANa 


occumbens imitabitur eum qui obla- 
tionem et hostiam in odorem suaui- 
tatis se patri tradidit, et fiet etiam 
ipse oblatio et hostia deo in odorem 
suauitatis’. So too Chrysostom: ‘Opas 
TO Umép éxOpav mabey drt dopn Evo- 
dias ori, Ovoia evmpdadexros; Kav 
dmoOavys, Tore on Ovoia: TodTO pupy- 
gaoOai éoti Tov Geov. 

3—14. ‘The gross sins of lust and 
rapacity must not even be mentioned 
—for are you not numbered with 
saints? Nothing foul, nothing even 
foolish must pass your lips: let the 
grace of wit be superseded by the 
truer grace of thanksgiving. You 
know for certain that these black sins 
exclude from the kingdom. Let no 
false subtilty impose upon you: it is 
these things which bring down God’s 
wrath on the heathen world. With 
that world you can have no fellowship 
now: you are light, and not darkness 
as you were. As children of light 
you must walk, and find the fruit of 
light in all that is good and true. 
Darkness has no fruit: with its fruit- 
less works you must have no partner- 
ship: nay, you must let in the light 
and expose them—those secrets of 
unspeakable shame. Exposure by the 
light is manifestation: darkness made 
manifest is turned to light. So we 
sing: Sleeper awake, rise from the 
dead: the Christ shall dawn upon 
thee’. 

3. 7% wAeoveEia] Comp. iv 19 eis 
épyaciay dxadapoias maons €v teo- 
ve&ia. It is clear that wAcovegia has in 
the Apostle’s mind some connexion 
with the class of sins which he twice 
sums up under the term dxaéapoia 
mwaca: yet it is not included, as some 
have supposed, in this class: other- 
wise we should have expected the 
order opveta dé kal mdcoveEia kai 


dxaOapoia waca. Neither is it a sy- 
nonym for axafapoia maca: for in 
Col. iii 5 (quoted below on ». 5) it 
stands even more clearly apart at the 
close of the list, being introduced by 
kal r7v, as here by the disjunctive 7. 

4. aicxporns| occurs here only in 
the Greek bible ; but in Col. iii 8 we 
have vuvi dé dmdbecOe kal vpeis ra 
mavra, opynv, Gupdv, Kakiav, Braodn- 
pilav, aigypodcyiay é€k Tov oTdpaTos 
ULOV. 

pwporoyia| Comp. Plut. Mor. 504 B 
ovtas ov Wéeyerar TO rive, el mpocein 
TO rive TO owwray- GAN 1) popodoyia 
peOny rrovet THY OlvwoLY. 

#| The disjunctive particle sepa- 
rates evrpamedia from aioypérns and 
pwporoyia, which are in themselves 
obviously reprehensible. Moreover 
the isolation of evrparedia prepares 
the way for the play upon words in 
its contrast with edyapioria. 

evtpameAia| versatility—nearly al- 
ways of speech—and so facetiousness 
and witty repartee. Aristotle regards 
it as the virtuous mean between 
scurrility and boorishness: Hth. Nic. 
ii 7 13 wept dé ro Hdd To pev ev mada, 
6 pev péoos evrpamedos Kai 9 SidOeors 
evtpameAia, 7 O€ vrepBodr Baporoyxia 
kal 6 €yov avr Bapoddxos, 6 8 édrel- 
mov aypoikos Tis Kal 7 e&ts aypoukia. 
In certain circumstances, however, kat 
of Bapodoxor evTpdmedot mpocayopevov- 
rat ws xapievres (ibid. iv 14 4); this 
does not mean that evrpamedia be- 
comes a bad thing, but that the bad 
thing (S@poroxia) puts itself forward 
under the good name. Comp. /het. 
ii 12 ad fin. 7 yap evrparedia tmema- 
Sevpéern UBpis eoriv: this is not given 
as a definition of the word: the point 
is that as youth affects dBprs, so evrpa- 
meXia, Which is a kind of ‘insolence 
within bounds’, is also a characteristic 


198 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


LV 5 


ca é \ of / / 
MadXov evxapirria. srovTO yap ioTe ywwoKoVTEs STL 


of youth. Although this quick-witted 
raillery might easily be associated 
with impropriety of conversation— 
and this danger is doubtless in the 
Apostle’s mind—yet the word itself 
appears to remain free from taint. 
This may be seen, for example, by its 
frequent association with xdpis and 
its derivatives: comp. Josephus Anizg. 
xii 4 3 noGeis dé emt rH yxapite Kal 
evtpareAia Tod veavioxov: Plutarch 
Mor. 52 D (of Alcibiades) pera evrpa- 
medias (dv Kal xapiros. 

dvnxev| Comp. Col. iii 18 &s dvijKev 
ev xupi@, and see Lightfoot’s note, in 
which he illustrates the use of the 
imperfect in this word and in rpocKev 
and xaéjxev (Acts xxii 22) by our own 
past tense ‘ought’ (=‘ owed’). 

evyaptotia| St Jerome’s exposition 
deserves to be given in full, as it 
throws light not only on the interpre- 
tation of the passage but also on the 
history of biblical commentary. ‘Up 
to this point, he says, ‘the Apostle 
seems to have introduced nothing 
foreign to his purpose or alien to 
the context. But in regard to what 
follows, some one may raise the ques- 
tion, What has “giving of thanks” to 
do immediately after the prohibition 
of fornication and uncleanness and 
lasciviousness and shamefulness and 
foolish speaking and jesting? If he 
was at liberty to name some one 
virtue, he might have mentioned 
“justice”, or “truth”, or “love” : though 
these also would have been somewhat 
inconsequent at this point. Perhaps 
then by “giving of thanks (gratiarum 
actio)” is meant in this place not that 
by which we give thanks to God, but 
that on account of which we are called 
grateful or ingratiating (grati siue 
gratiost) and witty (sals’) among men. 
For a Christian must not be a foolish- 
speaker and a jester: but his speech 
must be seasoned with salt, that it 
may have grace with them that hear 
it. And since it is not usual, except 


with certain learned persons among 
the Greeks, to use the word edyapiria 
[the editions give evyapiotia] as dis- 
tinguished from eucharistia, i.e. to 
distinguish between gratiosum esse 
and agere gratias, I suppose that the 
Apostle, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, 
used the current word and intended 
to hint at his own meaning in the 
signification of the other word: and 
this the rather, because with the 
Hebrews gratiosus and gratias agens 
are expressed, as they tell us, by one 


and the same word. Hence in Pro- | 


verbs (xi 16): yuv7) evxdpioros éyeiper 
avipt ddo€av, mulier grata suscitat 


utro gloriam, where it stands for © 


gratiosa. We should appear to be 
doing violence to the Scripture in 
thus daring to interpret mudlier 
gratias agens as mulier gratiosa, 


were it not that the other editions — 


agree with us: for Aquila and Theo- 
dotion and Symmachus have so ren- 
dered it, viz. yuv) ydpiros, mulier 
gratiosa, and not evdxdpicros, which 
refers to the “giving of thanks” 
Thus far St Jerome. But whence 
this subtle feeling for Greek, this apt 
quotation from the Greek bible, this 


appeal to various translators instead — 
of to the ‘ Hebrew verity’? We have © 
the answer in an extract from Origen’s © 
Commentary, happily preserved in © 


Cramer’s Catena: Ovx dvijxe Sé rois 
dylows ovdé adrn [sc. edrpamedial, GAda 
padXov 7 ev maot mpos Oeov evxapiorias 
qyouv evyaptotia Kal” fy evxapiorous 


‘ / , , , . 
kat XaplevTas Tivas paper: pwpodoyov 


‘ ka ‘ > , Xr > 8 “ >. 
pev ovy Kal evrpamedov ov Set eivat, 
, 
evxapicrov dé Kal yapievra, Kal éret 
dovvnbés eort TO eireiv ‘GAAG paddov 
> ea id > 
evxapiria’ (sic legendum: ed. evyapi- 
cos > 
otia), Taxa avtt rovtou éxpyaato TH €1 
t 2 
Grou keuévyn AEEer Kal elev ‘aA 
-~ > fae ‘ Ul ~ 
paddov evxapiotia’. Kal pymore €Oos 
> ‘ a“ tee 2 lod > , ‘ 
cori r@ dvdpate tis evxapiorias Kal 
ToU evxapiotov Tovs amo “EBSpaiwv 


xpnada dvti ris edxapirias (ed. edxa- 


torias) Kat evyapirov, x.7r.A. He then 
p Xap ’ 





V 5] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


199 


- fd SNS ‘0 \ / Chg ’ 
jas Topvos n akaVapTos y mWAEovEeKTHS, 0 éoTi Eldwro- 
/ b oo , > o~ / oe 
AaTpns, OVK EXEL KAnpovomiay ev TH Bacirela Tov ypl- 


proceeds to cite the Lxx and other 
versions of Prov. xi 16. St Jerome’s 
comment is thus fully accounted for, 
and we are able to see how closely he 
followed Origen, his indebtedness to 
whom he expresses in his preface. 
Since this note was written my friend 
Mr J. A. F. Gregg has examined the 
Paris ms of the Catena, and found 
that in both places it gives the word 
evxapitia. This word indeed appears 
to have no substantial existence and 
to be a mere conjecture on the part 
of Origen. 

We cannot suppose that St Paul 
meant anything but ‘thanksgiving’ by 
evxapioria. But he was led to his 
choice of the word by the double 
meaning which certainly belongs to 
the adjective evydpicros (comp., for 
example, Xenoph. Cyrop. ii 2 1 ev- 
Xaptordrarat Adyo). See the note on 
iv 29 iva 8@ xdpw Trois dxovovow. 

5. tore ywookovres| This appears 
to be a Hebraism for ‘ye know of a 
surety’, The reduplication with the 
infinitive absolute (1V7 Y! and the 
like) occurs 14 times in the Old 
Testament. The Lxx generally render 
it by yvovres yudoerbe, etc. Some- 
times the reduplication is simply 
neglected. In 1 Sam. xx 3, however, 
we find ywecxor oider, and in Jer. 
xlix (xlii) 22 the actual phrase tore 
yveéckortes drt occurs in several MSS 
sub asterisco, being a Hexaplaric 
reading which in the margin of Codex 
Marchalianus is assigned to Symma- 
chus. 

mAeovéxtns| See the notes on 2. 3 
and iv 19; and compare Ool, iii. 5 
mopveiav, akabapotav, mabos, émtOupiav 
kaknv, Kat THY mAcovekiay Aris eat 
eidwAoAarpia. In the New Testament 
the verb mveovexreiy is confined to 
two of St Paul’s epistles: it regularly 
means ‘to defraud’, 2 Cor. ii. 11 (iva 
2) mAcovertnOadpev dd Tod arava), 


Vii 2, xii 17 f. In 1 Thess. iv 6 it is 
used in connexion with the sin of 
impurity, rd px) dmepBaivew Kal mdeo- 
VeKTely €v TO Tpdypwatrt Tov adeAov 
avrov. Certain forms of impurity 
involve an offence against the rights 
of others (‘thou shalt not covet thy 
neighbour's wife’). Accordingly m\eco- 
veéia occurs in close proximity to sins 
of impurity in several passages. The 
context in such cases gives a colour 
to the word ; but it does not appear 
that wAeoveEia can be independently 
used in the sense of fleshly concu- 
piscence. The chief passages, besides 
those which have been cited above, 
are I Cor. v 9 ff. ¢ypaa wiv ev rH 
emusToAn py Tuvavauiyvuaba mopvois, 
ov mTdyT@s TOis Topvolts TOU KdapOU 
ToUTou jf) Tois mAeovextas Kal dpmakw 
i) eiS@AodNarpats, émel aheidere Apa ék 
Tov Koopou ¢e&eAOciv. viv dé &ypayra 
vp pn cvvavaptyvucbat édv Tis ddeAos 
dvopatopevos 7 Topvos 7) mAEovexTys 7 
elSwAoAadrpns 7 Aoidopos’ 7 péOvoos 7 
aprag, TO Towir@ pnde cvverOiey: 
vi 9 f. } ovK oldate dre Gdixoe Oeod 
Bacwrciav od KAnpovopnoovow; pn mwAa- 
vaoOe: ovre mopvot ovre eidwAoAdrpat 
ovTe potyot ovTe padakol ore apaevo- 
Koirat ovTe KAemrat ovTe mAcoveKTat, Od 
pébvoot, o¥ oidopot, ovx dprayes Bact- 
Aelav Oeod KAnpovopnoovow. In the 
former passage m\eovexrais comes in 
somewhat suddenly when zépvors alone 
has been the starting-point of the 
discussion; but the addition kal dp- 
maéw shews that the ground of the 
discussion is being extended. The 
latter passage recurs largely to the 
language of the former. For a further 
investigation of m\coveEia, and for its 
connexion with eidwAocdarpia, see 
Lightfoot’s notes on Col. iii 5. 

Tov xptorod kal Geod| The article 
is sometimes prefixed to the first only 
of a series of nearly related terms: 
compare ii 20 emi r@ Oeyedio téav 


200 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [VY 6—11 


~~ \ ~ 
oTov kat GQeov. 
\ ~ \ af Ry 9 \ x Fa] PEL \ cS 
dua Tavita yap EpxeTa 1 Opry Tov Veov Emt Tous vious 
i / wn S 
7un ovv yiveoOe cuvpéroxor aitav: *7 


6 \ e > b] / ~ / 
pndels Uuas dmaTaTw Kevots Noyais, 


Tns aebias. 

: , / lad \ ad > / 3 e / \ 

yap Tore oKOTOS, viv Oé pws év Kupi@” ws TEKVA wTos 
~ : \ CG \ / 

nh daa 96 yap eke Tou PwTos év Tacy dry eo- 

oun Kal Sucaroo vn Kal adn fete *SoxiucCovTes Tl €or 


nTE 


EeVapET'TOV Ta KUpio’ 
Tos dkapmow Tov oKOToUs, waANov Oé Kal édAeYYXETE, 


kal pan COUVKOLVWVYELTE TOLS Epryous 


adrooToAw@y Kat mpopyrayv, ili 12 Thy 
mappnoiay kal mpocaywyny, iii 18 ri 7rd 
mAatos kal pijkos Kal dos kal Babos. 

6. Kevois Meyois] The only parallel 
is a close one; Col. ii 8 d:d...nevqs 
amarns. Kevos when used of speech 
is practically equivalent to wWevdys: 
comp. Didaché 2 otc €orat 6 héyos 
gov evdys, od Kevds, GAAa pepeoTa- 
péevos mpakéer: also Arist. Eth, Nic. ii 
7 I Kevodrepor (Adyo) as opposed to 
dAnOivdrepor: Galen de diff. puls. iii 6 
(Kihn viii 672) ovrws odv kal tovs 
hoyous eviore Wevdeis dvouatovar Kevous. 

7. ovvpéroxo:| This compound and 
cuveoweveire IN % IL may be con- 
trasted with the three compounds 
ouvkAnpovopa, cVvTMpA, TuvpeToxa, by 
which the Apostle emphasised their 
entry into the new fellowship (iii 6). 

9. dyabwoivn| Comp. Rom. xv. 14, 
Gal. v 22, 2 Thess, i 11. It repre- 
sents the kindlier, as d:cacoovvy repre- 
sents the sterner element in the ideal 
character: comp. Rom. v 7. 

10. doxipagorres x.7.A.| Comp. Rom. 
Xli 2 eds Td SoxidCew pas Ti Td O€Anua 
Tov Oeov, Td ayabov Kal evapecrov Kat 
tédevov: and Col. iii 20 rodro yap 
evapeotov eotiv ev kupio. For the use of 
evapeoros and its adverb in inscriptions 
see Deissmann Neue Bibelst. p. 42. 

Il. édéyxere] The ordinary mean- 
ing of éd¢yxew in the New Testament 
is ‘to reprove’, in the sense of ‘to 
rebuke’. But in the only other pas- 
sage in which the word occurs in 
St Paul’s writings (apart from the 
Pastoral Epistles) reproof in words is 


clearly out of place: 1 Cor. xiv 24 
eav O€ mavres mpodnrevwouy, eicéhOy SE 
Tis Gmoros 7} iudrns, eAéyxeTat vrd 
mavTov, dyaxpiveras vmod mavTev, Ta 
Kpumra tis Kapdlas adtov davepa vyive- 
rat, Where the verb eAéyxew seems to 
suggest the explanatory sentence ra 
kpumra...pavepa yivera. So in our 
present passage ¢A¢yyere is immedi- 
ately followed by ra yap xpup7 ywd- 
peva, and subsequently we have ra 
dé mavra édeyxopeva vo Tov aris 
davepotra. Accordingly it is best to 
interpret the word in the sense of ‘to 
expose’; a meaning which it likewise 
has in John iii 20 pucet ro has kal 
ovK €pxerat mpos TO pas, iva pn EheyxO7 
Ta épya avrod (contrast iva havepwO7 
in the next verse). This signification 
is illustrated by Wetstein from Arte- 
midorus ii 36 Avs dd Svoews eEava- 
TéAA@y TA KpUTTTa EhEyxXeEL TOV AeAnOEvat 
doxovvrwy, and also from the lexico- 
graphers, 

With this interpretation we give 
unity to the whole passage. The 
contrast throughout is between light 
and darkness. First we have, as the 
result of the light, that testing which 
issues in the approval of the good 
(Soxipagew) 3 secondly, as the result 
of the meeting of the light with the 
darkness, that testing which issues in 
the exposure of the evil (eAéyxew). 
And then, since édéyxeoOar and dave- 
povoba are appropriate respectively 
to the evil and the good (as in John 
iii 20, quoted above), the transforma- 
tion of the one into the other is 





thee 





ee a ee ee ee 





V 12—14] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


201 


12 \ \ ~ / , ree eee > / p) \ 
Ta yap Kpup~y ywoueva Um avTey aicxpov éotw Kal 
/ \ \ / / lan 

Aéyew” Sra dé wavTa éNeyyopueva V0 TOU pwtos pave- 
la ~ \ \ / a 

pouTal, av yap TO pavepoupevoy has éotiv. 4510 rEvyeEt 


"Eyeipe, 6 kabevowy, 


\ / ~ A 
Kal dvacTa €k TOV VEKPOY, 


\ > Y 4 e / 
Kal ETLPAUT EL Tol 0 xXPLOTOS. 


marked by the change of the verbs: 
eheyxoueva...pavepovra...rd avepov- 
pevov as €oriv. 

12. aloxpdov éotw Kai déyew] The 
order of the sentence deserves atten- 
tion: ra yap kpupd7 ywoperva stands 
closely connected with ¢Aéyyere, and 
forms a special interpretation of ra 
épya tod oxdrovs: whereas aicxpoy 
éoTw Kal déyew means simply that 
they are ‘unspeakably shameful’. 

13. ta O€ wavra] This might be 
taken to mean ‘but all these things’, 
namely ra kpuyp7y ywopueva vm avrar. 
It seems however more in St Paul’s 
manner to interpret ra mavra as ‘all 
things’, and to regard the article as 
linking together the individual ele- 
ments (zavra) and presenting them as 
awhole. The statement accordingly is 
universal in its reference. All things 
when they come to be tested by the 
light cease to be obscure and become 
manifest. 

cbavepovpevov] ‘Omne enim quod 
manifestatur lumen est’, Vulg. To 
render with the Authorised Version 
‘for whatsoever doth make manifest is 
light’ is to do violence to the Greek 
(for there is no example in the New 
Testament of the middle voice of 
davepodv), and to offer a truism which 
adds nothing to the meaning of the 
passage. In St Paul’s mind ‘to be- 
come manifest ’means to cease to be 
darkness, and to be a partaker of the 
very nature of light: ‘for everything 
that becomes manifest islight’. Thus 
the Apostle has described a process 
by which darkness itselfis transformed 
into light. The process had been 


realised in those to whom he wrote: 
ire yap more oKdros, vov dé has (v. 8). 

14. 8:6 Aéyer] Comp. iv. 8. Seve- 
rian (Cramer’s Catena ad loc.), after 
saying that the passage is not to be 
found in the canonical writings, adds: 
xdpiopa iv tore Kal mpocevyfs Kat 
Warpay vroBaddovros tod mvedparos, 
Kadas déyet €v TH mpods Kopwiovs* 
"Exaotos vpav Warpov exet, mporevyny 
exet...d7Aov oby Ore ev évt TovT@Y TaV 
TvevpaTikayv Walpav iro. mpowevyav 
keto TodTO O éuynuovevoev. The at- 
tempts to assign the quotation to an 
apocryphal writing are probably mere 
guesses. 

érupavoe:| For the variants ém- 
Watoes and emufpavces see the note 
on various readings. 

15—33. ‘Be very careful, then, of 
your conduct. By a true wisdom you 
may ransom the time from its evil 
bondage. Cast away folly: under- 
stand the Lord’s will. Let drunken- 
ness, and the moral ruin that it brings, 
be exchanged for that true fulness 
which is the Spirit’s work, and which 
finds glad expression in the spiritual 
songs of a perpetual thanksgiving ; in 
a life of enthusiastic gratitude to the 
common Father, and yet a life of 
solemn order, where each knows and 
keeps his place under the restraining 
awe of Christ. The wife, for example, 
has her husband for her head, as the 
Church has Christ, the Saviour of His 
Body: she must accordingly obey her 
protector. So too the husband’s pat- 
tern of love is Christ’s love for the . 
Church, for which He gave up Him- 
self: and wherefore? To hallow His 


202 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


LV 25, 20 


Ss ~~ ~ “~~ \ 
SBrérere ovv akpiBws wws mepitatelTe, My ws 
4 \ / 
aoropor dAN ws cool, *éEayopaCouevot Tov Kalpov, 


Bride by a sacramental cleansing, to 
present her to Himself in the glory 
of a perfect beauty, with no spot of 
disfigurement, no wrinkle of age. But 
Christ’s Bride is also Christ’s Body: 
and the husband must love his wife 
as being his own body. Who hates 
his own flesh? Who does not feed 
and tend it? So isit with Christ and 
the Church: for we are the limbs of 
His Body. Is it not written of 
marriage, that the two shall be one 
flesh? Great is the hidden meaning 
of those words. I declare them to be 
true of Christ and the Church: your 
part is to realise their truth in your 
respective spheres: as the fear of 
Christ is met by Christ’s love, so let 
the wife fear, and the husband love’. 

15. Bdemere] St Paul frequently 
uses BrXérevv in the sense of ‘to take 
heed’: (1) with the accusative, as in 
Col, iv. 17 Bréze tiv Siaxoviay (look to, 
consider), Phil. iii 2 rods kivas x.7.d. 
(beware of); (2) with fa or py, fre- 
quently; (3) with més, here and in 
1 Cor. iii 10 €kaoros 5é Brerérw mas 
éro:xodopvet. Here only we have the 
addition of dxpiBas,—‘take careful 
heed’. On the variant mas dxpiBds 
see the note on various readings, 

mepirareire] The repetition of this 
word takes us back to v 8 ds réxva 
ewros mepurareire. The particle ody 
isresumptive. The metaphor of dark- 
ness and light is dropped, and the 
contrast is now between adcoda and 
codoi. 

16. e€ayopa¢dpuevor] Comp. Col. iv 
5 ev copia mepurareire mpos tovs ea, 
Tov Kaipoy é€ayopaouevot. *Ayopdteuw 
is used of persons by St Paul only in 
the phrase ryopacOnre tips, 1 Cor. vi 
20, vii 23, in each case the metaphor 
being of purchase into servitude. So 
we have in 2 Pet. ii 1 rév dyopacavra 
avtois Seonérnv, It is used of the 
redeemed in the Apocalypse, v 9, 


xiv 3f. *E&ayopd¢ew is only used by 
St Paul, and in the two other places 
in which it occurs it has the meaning 
of ‘buying out’ or ‘away from’: Gal. 
iii 13 Xpeoros nas eEnyopacev ex THs 
katdpas, iv. 5 iva rods vid vopov é€ayo- 
paon. This meaning of ‘ransoming, 
redeeming’ is found in other writers. 

There seems to be no authority for 
interpreting the word, like cvvayopa- 
¢ew and cuveveicda, as ‘to buy up’ 
(coemere). Polyb. iii 42 2 is cited as 
an example, éfnydpace map’ adtav Ta 
Te povoévAa mdoia wavra (Hannibal 


bought all the boats of the natives in . 


order to cross the Rhone); but the 
sense of ‘buying up’ is given by the 
addition of wavra, and the verb itself 
both there and in Plut. Crass. 2 need 
mean no more than ‘to buy’. In 
Mart. Polyc. 2 we have the middle 
voice as here, but in the sense of 
‘buying off’ (comp. the use of éfevei- 
oOa and eéxmpiacOa), dia pias Spas 
THY aidmov Kokaow eéayopaCopevor. 

A close verbal parallel is Dan. ii 8 
oida drt Kaipov vpeis eayopagere, ‘1 
know of a certainty that ye would gain 
the time’ (Aram. }*31 JAIN XY 1), 
but this meaning is not applicable to 
our passage. The Apostle appears to 
be urging his readers to claim the 
present for the best uses. It has got, 
so to speak, into wrong hands—‘ the 
days are evil days’—they must pur- 
chase it out of them for themselves, 
Accordingly the most literal transla- 
tion would seem to be the best, ‘7e- 
deeming the time’; but not in the 
sense of making up for lost time, as 
in the words ‘Redeem thy misspent 
time that’s past’. 

rov xapov| A distinction is often 
to be clearly marked between xpovos 
as ‘time’ generally, and xaipds ‘ the 
fitting period or moment for a par- 
ticular action’. But xaipos is by no 
means limited to this latter sense. 


2 yaar 








V. 37, 18] 


e/ ¢ 
OTE Gt 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.. 


/ 
nMEpat Tovnpal Eiow. 


203 


A la 
7§1a TouTO wn yiverOe 


/ > \ / / \ / Pond 

adpoves, a\A\a ouviete Ti TO OéAnua TOU kupiou: kal 
‘ 1 »” © \ 

MH MeOYCKECOE OING, EV w EoTlv dowTia, dda TAN- 


Thus in St Paul we have 6 viv xarpés, 
Rom. iii 26, viii 18 (ra mwaOjpatra rot 
viv kaipov), Xi 5: and o xaipos alone, 
for the time that now is, or that still 
is left, Rom. xiii 11 eiSdres rov Karpov, 
dre @pa Hon vas €& imvov éeyepOqvat, 
I Cor. vii 29 6 kaupos ovverradpévos 
eotiv. See also Gal. vi 10 ws katpov 
éxonev, Which Lightfoot takes to mean 
‘as we have opportunity’; but he 
allows that ‘there is no objection to 
rendering it “hile we have time”, 
and compares Ignat. Smyrn. 9 ds ér 
katpov Exouev, and [2 Clem.] 8, 9. 

movnpai] Compare vi 13 dvriorivac 
€v TH Epa TH movnpa, and Gal. i 4 
€k TOU aidvos Tod évert@Tos movnpot. 
Though ‘the days are evil’, they are 
capable in some degree at least of 
transformation: the time may be 
rescued. So Origen interprets the 
whole passage: ofovel éavrois Tov Kat- 
pov avovpeva, exovra os mpos Tov 
avOpdmivov Biov movnpas nuépas. dre 
oby eis re Séov Tov Kaipoy KatavadicKo- 
pev, dynoducba avrov Kal avrnyopacapev 
€auTois womrepel mempapevoy TH TOY av- 
Opérwv xakia...c£ayopatopevor dé rov 
katpov bvra év nuépats trovnpais, oiovel 
peTarowtper Tas movnpas nuépas eis 
dya@as, «..A.  Severian’s comment 
(also in Cramer’s Catena) is similar: 6 
e£ayopa(opevos tov dAAdrpiov SodAov 
éEayopaterat kat Krarat avrov. érret ovp 
© Kalipos 6 mapav SovAEvet Tois Tovnpois, 
é£ayopdcacbe a’rov, Bote KaTaxpyoa- 
cba ate mpos edoreBevar. 

17. ouviere x.t.A.] Comp. v. Io 
Soxiuatovres x7.A. For the variant 
cuuévres see the note on various 
readings. 

18. py pedvoxeade oive| So Prov. 
xxlii 31 (Lxx only), according to the 
reading of A. B has év otvois, & oivors. 
We might hesitate to accept the 
reading of A, regarding it as an 


assimilation to the text of our passage, 
but that Origen confirms it (Tisch. 
Not. Cod. Sin. p. 107). As the words 
év owos occur in the preceding verse, 
the change in B is probably due to a 
desire for uniformity. 

dooria] Comp. Tit. 16 rékva éyov 
TlLoTa, put) €v KaTHYyopia aowtias 7) av- 
vmorakta, I Pet. iv 4 un ovvtpexovTav 
Upay eis Thy avTiHy THs dowrias dvaxvow. 
The adverb is used in Luke xv 13 
Steoxdpmicev tiv ovolay avrov av 
doadras (comp. %. 30 6 Karahayoy cov 
Tov Biov pera tropvar). 

mAnpovo be ev mvevpar.| Thesequence 
of thought appears to be this: Be 
not drunk with wine, but find your 
fulness through a higher instrumen- 
tality, or in a higher sphere. If the 
preposition marks the instrumentality, 
then rvedpa signifies the Holy Spirit: 
if it marks the sphere, mvetpa might 
still mean the Holy Spirit, but it 
would be more natural to explain it 
of spirit generally (as opposed to 
flesh) or of the human spirit. In the 
three other places in which we find év 
mvevpare in this epistle there is a like 
ambiguity: ii 22 ovvotKodopeiode eis 
KaTotkntnplov Tov Oeov ev mvevpart, iii 5 
dmexadvpbn Tois ayiots dmroardXots av- 
Tov kal mpopnras év mvevpari, Vi 18 
mpooevxopevot €v mavtl Karp@ év mvev- 
part. In every case it appears on the 
whole best to interpret the phrase as 
referring to the Holy Spirit: and the 
interpretation is confirmed when we 
observe the freedom with which the 
Apostle uses the preposition in in- 
stances which are free from ambi- 
guity ; as I Cor. xii 3 év mvevpare Oeod 
adap, 13 év Evi mvedpare €Barric Onper, 
Rom. xv 16 mpoodopa...yyracpevn ev 
mvevpart ayia: compare also Rom. xiv 
17, where there is a contrast some- 
what resembling that of our text, ov 


204 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[V 19—22 


potio be éy mvevpatt, AadovvTes EavTots yore Kal 
Uuvors Kal oats (dpeu ik dames adovTes Kal Vaddorres 


TH karpoier UMOY TH Kupl, 


PEELE TT TAVTOTE 


Umrep TavTwy év dvomare TOU Kupiou nuwy Inood Xpiorod 
To Jew Kal TaTpl, 1 iroTacoouevot dAAnAots év PoBy 


Xpicrob. 


yap é€otw 7 Baoweia Tov Geot Bpaors 
Kat moots, GAAd dixavocvyn Kal elpyvy 
kal yapa éy mvevpare ayio. 

If then we adopt the interpretation, 
‘Let your fulness be that which comes 
through the Holy Spirit’, how are we 
to render the words in English? The 
familiar rendering ‘ Be filled with the 
Spirit’ suggests at first sight that the 
injunction means ‘ Become full of the 
Holy Spirit’. Such an injunction 
however has no parallel: had this 
been the Apostle’s meaning he would 
almost certainly have used the geni- 
tive (comp. e.g. Acts ii 13 yAevKous 
pepeotopevoe ciciv): and he would 
probably have cast his precept into 
the form of an exhortation to pray 
that such fulness might be granted. 
Nevertheless this rendering, though 
not strictly accurate, suffices to bring 
out the general sense of the passage, 
inasmuch as it is difficult to distin- 
guish between the fulness which 
comes through the Spirit, and the 
fulness which consists in being full of 
the Spirit: the Holy Spirit being at 
once the Inspirer and the Inspiration. 
We may therefore retain it in view 
of the harshness of such substitutes 
as ‘ Be filled in the Spirit’ or ‘by the 
Spirit’. 

19. Aadodvres Kad] Comp. Col. iii 
16 diddoxovres Kat vovGerodrres Eavtovs 
Varpois, t vprots, @dais mvevparekais é€v 
xapirt, Gdovres év rais Kapdias v ULOV TO 
ed. See Lightfoot’s notes on that 
passage : ‘while the leading idea of 
Waduds is a musical accompaniment, 
and that of dpuvos praise to God, go 
is the general word for a song’. 


22 Ai yuvaikes, Tois ilo dvdpacw ws TH 


Accordingly the defining epithet wvev- 
parixais is reserved for this last word 
in both places. On the variants in 
this verse see the note on various 
readings. 

20. evxapiorourvres x.t.A.] So in 
Col. iii 17 cat ma@v 6 Te edy motnre ev 
hoy u ev PVs mavra év dvopare 
Kupiov “Inoov, evxapiotouvres TO Oe@ 
matpt &¢ avrov. Compare 1 Thess. v 
16 mavrote xaipete, ddiadeintas Tpocev- 


> cad 
xeoe, €v mavri evyapioteire. 


22. Al yuvaixes x.r..| As a matter 
of construction this clause depends on 
the preceding participle: ‘submitting 
yourselves one to another in the fear 


of Christ: wives, unto your own hus- - 


bands, as unto the Lord’. Ai yuvaixes 
accordingly stands for the vocative, 
as in Col. iii 18, ai yuvaixes, vrordo~ 
oeabe rois dvipdow, ds avixev év kupio: 
compare the vocatives of dvdpes, ra 
réxva, etc. lower down in the present 
passage, vi 1, 4 f., 9. When this 
section was read independently of the 
preceding verses, it became necessary 
to introduce a verb; and this is 
probably the cause of the insertion 
of trordcoecbe or vrotaccécOwcay in 
most of the texts: see the note on 
various readings. 

idiots] The parallel in Col. iii 18 
shews that this word may be inserted 
or omitted with indifference where 
the context makes the meaning clear. 
So we find idias with yepowy in 1 Cor. 
ivy 12; but not according to the 
best text, in Eph. iv 28, 1 Thess. 
iv 11. It was often added by scribes, 
in accordance with the later prefer- 
ence for fulness of expression. 





ij eG RT AD 


So a art 





Ss eee 





V 23—26] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 


205 


- e/ Shea. 7. \ an 
Kupio, O71 avip éoTw Kepady THis yuvakos Ws Kal 6 
XploTos Kepady THs exKAnolas, avTos TwWTNP TOU CwMa- 
Tos. ™“déAXa ws 1) ExkAnoia VrordooeTat Tw XPOS; 


oUTWS Kal al eee Tols dyOpac tv év TavTi. 


5Oj 


dvopes, eh Tas le Sige Kalas Kal O Xploros 
ny arnoev THY éxkAnotay Kat E€auTov Trapedwxev Uirep 


avtTns, *% 


23. avyp| The definite article (6) is 
absent in the best text: ‘a husband 
is head of his wife’, or, more idiom- 
atically in English, ‘the husband is 
the head of the wife’. The article 
with yvvaxos defines its relation to 
avnp. So in 1 Cor. xi 3 Kehad7 de 
yuvatkos 6 avnp, ‘a woman’s head is 
her husband’, it defines the relation 
of avjp to the preceding yuvarkds. 

airés owtnp| On the variant xat 
aurés éoTw owtyp see the note on 
various readings. The true text in- 
dicates the special reason why the 
Apostle here speaks of Christ as the 
Head. He will not however enlarge 
on the subject, but returns, with ddd, 
to the matter in hand. 

24. adda os| In order to retain 
for d\Ad its full adversative force 
many commentators interpret the 
preceding words, avros oarnp Tov 
o@paros, aS intended to enhance the 
headship of Christ, as being vastly 
superior to that of the husband: so 
that the connexion would be, ‘but 
notwithstanding this difference’, etc. 
The interpretation adopted in the 
exposition saves us from the neces- 
sity of putting this strain upon the 
Apostle’s language. As in several 
other places, dAAa is used to fix the 
attention on the special point of 
immediate interest: comp. 1 Cor. xii 
24, 2 Cor. iii 14, viii 7, Gal. iv 23, 29: 
if this is not strictly ‘the resumptive 
use’ of dAAd, it isakin to it. The use 
of wAnv at the end of this section 
(e. 33) is closely parallel. 

25. Oi dvdpes«.r.A.| So in Col. iii 


lva auTny ayiacy kabapioas TW AovTpw TOU 


19 of avdpes, dyanare Tas yvvaikas Kal 
fr) mexpaiverOe Mpos avras. 

26. cyidon kaGapicas| ‘Cleanse and 
sanctify’ is the order of thought, as 
in 1 Cor. vi 11 d\Ad dredovcacbe, 
GAAG wyidoOnre : Cleanse from the old, 
and consecrate to the new. But in 
time the two are coincident. It was 
no doubt the desire to keep xa6apicas 
closely with 76 Aourpé «.7.A. that led 
to the rendering of the Authorised 
Version, ‘sanctify and cleanse’. To 
render xa@apicas ‘having cleansed’ 
would be to introduce a distinction 
in point of time: we must therefore 
say ‘cleansing’ (or ‘by cleansing’). 

For the ritual sense of xadapifa, 
see Deissmann (Neue Bibelst. pp. 
43 f.), who cites CZA Ul 74 kaapi- 
Ceat@ (sic) dé dd o({k)opdav kali xor- 
péwv] Kali yuvacxds], ovoapuévous dé 
Karaxépaha avOnuepov ell omopev leo Oa. 

T@ Aovtp@] Three allied words must 
be ‘distinguished : (1) Aovrpev ‘the 
water for washing’, or ‘the washing’ 
itself ; (2) Noutpar, ‘the place of wash- 
ing’; (3) Aournp, ‘the vessel for wash- 
ing’, ‘thelaver’, Each of these may 
in English be designated as ‘the bath’. 
We may take as illustrations of (1) 
and (2) Plutarch, vita Alexandrt 23 
karadvoas 5é kai rpemdopuevos mpos dov- 
rpov #) drerppa, and Sympos. P. 734 B, 
where after speaking of 9 epi ra 
AouTpa modvTabera he relates that 
’AreEavdpos pev 6 Bacre’s ev TO 
Aourpou mupérrav exadevdev. In the 
LXx (1) and (3) are found: Aourip is 
used for ‘a laver’ 16 times: Aovrpoy 
represents M¥I] in Cant. iv 2, vi 6 


206 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[¥° oF 


ny > Lee f 27 °/ / 5) \ € am > 5 
VOaTOS EV PnMaTl, iva TAapacTyoy avuTOS EQUTW EV o£ov 


(of sheep coming up ‘from the wash- 
ing’), and occurs in Sir. xxxi (xxxiv) 
30 Bamri{opevos amo vexpov Kal wahw 
drropevos avrov, Ti apedAnoer TO AovTpS 
avrov; In Ps, lix (1x) 10, evii (cviii) 
Io "$f WD ‘my washpot’ is rendered 
by Aquila Ac€Bns Aouvrpod pou (the Lxx 
has A€Bys rips €Amidos pov). The Latin 
versions maintain the distinction by 
the use of labrum for ‘laver’ (in the 
' Pentateuch: olla, etc. elsewhere), and 
of lawacrum for ‘washing’ in Canticles. 
In Ps. lix (Ix) 10 Jerome’s version has 
olla lauacri: in Sirach Cyprian and 
the Vulgate have Jawatio, but Au- 
gustine thrice gives Jawacrum. 

For patristic references confirming 
the meaning of ‘ washing’ for Aourpéy, 
see Clem. Alex. Paed. iii 9 46, Dion. 
Alex. ep. xiii ad fin., Epiph. ezpos. 
Jfid. 21, Dind. ut 583; and contrast 
Hippol. [?] ed. Bonwetsch-Achelis 1 
pt 2, p. 262 pera rv tis KohuuBnOpas 
dvayévynow. 

The only other passage in the New 
Testament where Aovrpoy occurs is 
Tit. iii 5 €owoev jyas dia Aovrpod 
maduyeveoias Kal avaxawecews mvev- 
patos ayiov. Both there and here the 
Authorised Version correctly renders 
it ‘the washing’: ‘the bath’ would not 
be incorrect, though somewhat am- 
biguous: ‘the laver’ is incorrect, 
and has probably been suggested by 
the Latin ‘Zauacro’, which has been 
misunderstood. 

ev pynyatt] In the New Testament 
pjwa represents the various uses of 
the Hebrew 25, (1) A spoken word 
of any kind, as in Matt. xii 36 pjya 
apyov. (2) A matter, as in Luke i 37 
ovk aduvarnoet mapa Tov Oeod wav phua, 
‘nothing shall be too hard for God’ 
(where zapa rod reproduces a Hebrew 
idiom, the passage being based on 
Gen. xviii 14 pa dduvarnoes map Tod 
Geod [the true reading, supported by 
the old Latin, not mapa 16 bed] 
pjpa;), and Luke ii 15 ro pjpa trovro 
TO yeyovds. (3) Ina solemn sense, as 


when ‘the word of God’ comes to a 
prophet, Luke iii 2 éyévero pia Oeov 
em “Iwdvnv: comp. pyya Oeod in this 
epistle, vi 17. It is also used more 
specially (4) of the Christian teaching, 
as in 1 Pet. i 25 (from Isa. xl 8) 76 8€ 
pia Kupiov peéver eis Tov aldva* TovTO 
dé €orw TO pipa 7d evayyedicber es 
vpas, and Heb. vi 5 cadov yevoapévous 
Geot pia. The most remarkable 
passage is Rom. x 8 ff, where, after 
quoting Deut. xxx 14 éyyis cov rd 
phpa éeorw, ev tG ordpati cov Kab év 
7H kapdia cov, the Apostle continues 
Tour feorw TO pia THs mioteas 6 
Knpvcoopev. Ste eav oporoynons Td 
pia év Te oropati cov bre KYPIOS 
THSOYS, xal morevons x... Here 
TO pjya stands on the one hand for 
the Christian teaching (comp. v. 17 
dia pyparos Xpicrod), and on the other 
for the Christian confession which 
leads to salvation. With this must 
be compared 1 Cor. xii. 3, where the 
same confession appears as a kind of 
formula, and is sharply contrasted 
with a counter-formula ANA@EMA 
IHSOYS. Compare, too, Phil. ii 11 
mwaca y\aooa e£ouodoynonra dri KY- 
PIOS IHSOYS XPISTOS. 

In the present passage it is clear 
that the phrase év pyyari indicates 
some solemn utterance by the accom- 
paniment of which ‘the washing of 
water’ is made to be no ordinary 
bath, but the sacrament of baptism. 
Comp. Aug. tract. 80 in Joan, 3 ‘ De- 
trahe uerbum, et quid est aqua nisi 
aqua? accedit uerbum ad elementum, 
et fit sacramentum ; etiam ipsum tam- 
quam uisibile uerbum’. 

What then was this pjya? Chry- 
sostom asks and answers the question 
thus: °Ev prjyart, pynoi+ moig; év dvd- 
pate matpos Kal viod Kal dyiov mvev- 
patos: that is to say, the triple 
formula of baptism. In the earliest 
time, however, baptism appears to 
have been administered ‘in the name 
of Jesus Christ’ (Acts ii 38, x 48, 


© Pal RT RES pel 





—_---—_ — 





V 28] 


y > / \ 
THY €KKAno Lay, py 


/ / 
TOLOUTWY, AAN’ iva 


comp. Vili 12) or ‘the Lord Jesus’ 
(Acts viii 16, xix 5); and on the use 
of the single formula St Paul’s argu- 
ment in 1 Cor. i 13 seems to be based 
(un TlatAos eoravpabn vrép vpar, }) eis 
TO Ovowa IlavAov éBarricOnre;). The 
special pjya above referred to points 
the same way. The confession érz 
KYPIOS IHSOY= was the shortest and 
simplest statement of Christian faith 
(comp. Acts xvi 31 ff. micrevoov ém 
Tov KUpLov "Incody Kail cwOnon od Kal 6 
oikés gov...kat €Barricbn adrés xa of 
avrov dmayres mapaxpypa). That some 
confession was required before bap- 
tism is seen from the early glosses 
upon the baptism of the eunuch, Acts 
viii 37, and that this soon took the 
form of question and answer (émrepa- 
Tha) is suggested by 1 Pet. iii 21, 
where the context contains phrases 
which correspond with the second 
division of the baptismal creed of 
the second century. Indeed the origin 
of the creed is probably to be traced, 
not in the first instance to the triple 
formula, but to the statement of the 
main facts about ‘the Lord Jesus’ as 
a prelude to baptism ‘in His name’. 
When under the influence of Matt. 
xxviii 19 the triple formula soon 
came to be universally employed, the 
structure of the baptismal creed 
would receive a corresponding ela- 
boration. 

It is probable, then, that the pjya 
here referred to is the solemn mention 
of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ 
in connexion with the rite of baptism, 
either as the confession made by the 
candidate or as the formula employed 
by the ministrant. We may therefore 
render the passage: ‘that He might 
sanctify it, cleansing tt by the washing 
of water with the word’. 

For the use of the preposition 
we may compare vi 2 ev emayyeXia. 
The absence of the definite article 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


207 


» / By ¢€ / 7 a 
Eyovucav o7idXoy 7 puTioa nN TL TwV 
oS e / Nit fof 28 e/ $ / 
n ayia Kal auwpos. ouTws odel- 


presents no difficulty ; the meaning is 
‘with a word which is appropriate 
to this washing’, the pjya being 
sufficiently defined by the context. 

There appears to be no ground for 
supposing that the Apostle here makes 
any allusion to a ceremonial bath 
taken by the bride before marriage. 
There is no evidence for such a rite 
in the Old Testament, the passages 
sometimes cited being quiteirrelevant 
(Ruth iii 3, Ezek. xxiii 40). In the 
Jegend of ‘Joseph and Asenath’ there 
is no such ceremony, though it is true 
that after her long fast Asenath 
washes her face and hands before she 
puts on her bridal costume. Nor 
does it appear as a Christian cere- 
mony, though it probably would have 
been retained if St Paul had been 
regarded as alluding to it here. St 
Paul’s thought is of the hallowing of 
the Church, and thus he is at once 
led to speak of the sacrament of 
baptism. 

27. mapaortjon| Comp. 2 Cor. xi 2 
nppooduny yap vpas évt dvdpi mapbévoy 
aynv mapacrica TH xpioro. Here 
Christ Himself (avrds, not avr7jv, see 
the note on various readings) presents 
the Church all-glorious to Himself. 
*Evdo€ov is the predicate: the word 
occurs again in I Cor. iv Io dpeis 
évdoEor, nets Sé ariywor, and twice in 
St Luke’s Gospel, vii 25 (of glorious 
apparel), xiii 17 (of glorious works). 

oritov 7 putida] ‘spot of disfigure- 
ment or wrinkle of age’. Neither 
word is found in the Lxx. Comp. 
2 Pet. ii 13 o7idoe cal paopor: Plut. 
Mor. 789 D ois 7 yeAopévn moda kab 
putis éumeipias pdprus émupaivera: 
Diosce. i 39 (de oleo amygdalino) aipe: 
dé kal oridouvs ék mpoowmov Kal épy- 
Nets (freckles) cal puridas. 

dyla cat dpopos] Comp. i 4 elva 
jas ayious kal duapous Karevedmuoy 
avrov év ayarn, and see the note there. 


208 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


LV 29—32 


ANovow Kal oi avopes ayamay Tas éavTwY yuVaikas ws 
Ta éavTav cwmaTa’ 6 adyarev THY éavTOU yuvaika 
éavTov adyand, %ovdels yap mote THv éavTOU capKa 
éulonoev, dAAa éxtpépe Kal Oadrrer avTny, KaOws Kat 6 
ypirtos THY éxkAnolav, °STt edn éopev TOD TwWMaTOS 
FANTI KATAAEIYE! ANOpwWTOC TON 
KAl TPpocKOAAH@HCETAI 


TOY TOY 
THN MHTEPA 


auTOU. 
TATEPA Kal 
mpdc THN FYNAIKS AYTOY, KAl ECONTAI Oi AYO eic 
cépka Mian. 37O puoTiploy TOUTO péya éoTiv, éyw OE 


28. obras] This is not to be taken 


SRE RTL LEENA TOL GIOIA ci 


31. avtt tovrov] Comp. avf av, 


as the antecedent to ws ra éavtady 
oopata, Which means ‘as being their 
own bodies’. It refers to the general 
drift of what has gone before: ‘thus’, 
‘in this same manner’. This is the 
meaning of ovrws in Matt. v 16 otras 
Aapwara TO Pads vuey, x.7.A.: that is 
to say, ‘as the lamp shineth’ (v. 15); 
not ‘in such a way...that they may 
see’ etc. 

29. oapxa] The change from cdpa 
to cdpé gives a fresh emphasis to the 
thought, and at the same time pre- 
pares the way for the quotation in 
® 31. 

éxtpeder kai OdAret] Each of these 
words is once used by the Apostle 
elsewhere, but in reference to the 
nurture of children: below, vi 4 ék- 
Tpehere avta ev madeia Kal vovbevia 
Kupiov: 1 Thess. ii 7 ws édy rpodos 
Oddrrn Ta éavTns Tékva. 

30. péAn] The relation of the 
parts to the whole is here empha- 
sised, as is the relation of the parts 
of the whole to one another in iv 25 
ort éopev aGdAnrov péAdn. With the 
latter compare Rom. xii 5 of moAdol 
év oOud eopev ev Xprote@, TO O€ kal’ eis 
GAAnAwv péAn: With the former 1 Cor. 
vi 15 Ta oopara vpov pedn Xpiotod 
eoriv, X11 27 vpeis O€ Core OHpa Xpiorod 
kai wéAn éx pépous. 

For the addition ék ris capKds adrot 
kal €k TOY OoTEewy avrov see the note 
on various readings, 


2 Thess, ii 10, and four times in St 
Luke’s writings, Ithas been suggested 
that dvri here means ‘instead of’, the 
contrast being with the idea of a 
man’s hating his own flesh (2. 29); 
and the mention of oapé in both 
verses is pleaded in favour of this 
interpretation. In the few passages 
in which St Paul uses dvri, however, 
it does not suggest opposition, but 
correspondence: Kakov aytt Kakou, 
Rom. xii 17, 1 Thess. v 153 Kopy dvtl 
meptBoraiov, I Cor. xi 15. This of 
course is in no way decisive of his use 
of the word in the present passage: 
but it seems on the whole more 
natural to suppose that dvr rovrouv 
is intended as equivalent to évexey 


rovrov by which }3">Y is represented 


in the Lxx of Gen. ii 24. Comp. 
Jerome ad loc.: ‘apostolus pro eo 
quod ibi habetur évexey rovrov, id est 
propter hoc, posuit dvr rovrov, quod 
latine aliis uerbis dici non potest’. 
The only other variant from the Lxx 
in our text is the omission of avrod 


after warépa and pytépa: see, how- | 


ever, the note on various readings. 
32. Td pvoTnptov K.7.A.] The mean- 
ing of pvornpioy is discussed in a 
separate note. In St Paul’s use of 
the word we must distinguish (1) its 
employment to designate the eternal 
secret of God’s purpose for mankind, 
hidden from the past but revealed in 


a ee is ee 








V 33] 


/ > \ \ 
Aeyw evs Xpiorov Kat els THv éxKAnolav. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


209 


\ 
BorrAnv Kae 


e ~ e > e/ e/ s," ~ ~ 

UMeEs Ol Ka EVa EKAGOTOS THY EaUTOU Yvvalika ovUTws 
? / e € / e oe \ ef ~ \ 7 
AYATATW WS EAUVTOV, 4 OE yun iva poBnrat TOV avopa. 


Christ; comp. in this epistle, i 9, iii 4, 
9, Vi19; Col. i 26 f., ii 2, iv 3; Rom. 
Xvi 25; 1 Cor. ii 1, 7: (2) a more 
general use of the word in the plural, 
1 Cor. iv 1, xiii 2, xiv 2: (3) the use 
of the singular for some particular 
secret of the Divine economy or of 
the future; as in Rom. xi 25 ro 
puvaornptoy rovro (of the partial blind- 
ness of Israel, which has been figured 
by the olive-tree), 1 Cor. xv 51 idod 
pvotTnpiov vpiv Aéyw (of the last 
trump). The remarkable phrase in 
2 Thess. ii 7 rd pvornptov rijs dvopias, 
connected as it is with a thrice 
repeated use of dmoxaduPOjvat, ap- 
pears to form part of an intentional 
parallel between ‘the man of sin’ and 
our Lord. The remaining examples 
are in the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Tim. 
iii 9 TO pvoTypiov Ths miotews, iii 16 
Opodoyoupevos péya €oTly TO THs evoe- 
Beias pvornptov. 

The use of the word in our text is 
not quite parallel to any of the above 
uses. The union of husband and wife 
as ‘one flesh’ is a pvortipioy, or con- 
tains a puvotypiov (according as we 
interpret ro pvornpiov rodro as refer- 
ring to the actual statement of Gen. 
ii 24, or to the spiritual meaning of 
that statement: the word pvotnpioy 
hovers between ‘the symbol’ and ‘the 
thing symbolised’ in Apoc. i 20, xvii 
5,7). This puornpror is of far-reaching 
importance (péya): but all that the 
Apostle will now add is that he is 
speaking (or that he speaks it) con- 
cerning Christ and the Church. 

The Latin rendering ‘sacramentum 
hoc magnum est’ well represents the 
Greek ; for ‘sacramentum’ combines 
the ideas of the symbol and its mean- 
ing. It is hardly necessary to point 
out that it does not imply that St 


EPHES.” 


Paul is here speaking of marriage as 
a sacrament in the later sense. 

eyo dé Aéyw] +The insertion of the 
pronoun emphasises this teaching as 
specially belonging to the Apostle. It 
was his function in a peculiar sense 
to declare the mystical relation of 
Christ to the Church. 

eis| ‘with reference to’: comp. Acts 
li 25 Aaveld yap Aéyet eis adrov. 

33. mAnv kat dpeis] that is, Do you 
at least grasp this, the practical lesson 
of love on the one part and of rever- 
ence on the other. 

iva poBfra| This carries us back 
to v. 21 é&v dé8 Xpiorod. There 
appears to be a double reference to 
this in 1 Pet. iii 1—6, which clearly 
is not independent of our epistle: 
“Opoiws yuvaixes vroragadpevat ois 
idiots dvdpacw...rivy ev PdéBo ayriv 
avaotpopyy vuov: and then as if to 
guard against a false conception of 
fear, wy poBovpevar pndepiay mronow 
(where the actual phrase comes from 
Prov. iii 25 kai od hoBnOnon mrénow 
ered Oovcay). 

For the ellipse before iva the near- 
est parallel seems to be 1 Cor. vii 29 
To Aouroy iva Kal of ¢yovres yuvaixas as 
pi) éxovres Gow. For a change from 
another construction to one with iva, 
see above v. 27 ui) fyovcay...adr’ iva 
fjeeey and a nearer parallel in 1 Cor. 
xiv 5 Oé\om dé mdvras tpas Aadety 
yAdocats, paddov dé iva mpohyretnre. 

VI. 1—9. ‘These principles of rever- 
ence and love extend through the 
whole sphere of family life. Children 
must obey: it is righteous: and the 
old precept still carries its special 
promise. Fathers must insist on 
obedience, and must not make dis- 
cipline more difficult by a lack of 
loving patience. Again, slaves must 


14 


210 


VI. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[VI 1-4 


/ / ~ A ~ 
*Ta@ Texva, UTaKOVETE TOS yovEevow Uw éV 


~ / s f 
kuplw, TovTO yap éorw Oikaoyy *tima TON TATEPA 
“ 


‘ \ ' ef \ \ / 
coY Kal THN MHTépa, HTIS éeoTiv EvTOAN TpwTN eV 


émrayyeNia, Fina ef cot rénutal Kal cH maKkpoypée 


NIOoc é€m!i TAc fac. 


obey: with a trembling fear and a 
whole-hearted devotion, looking to 
their masters as to Christ Himself. 
They are Christ’s slaves, doing God’s 
will in their daily tasks; not rendering 
a superficial service to please an 
earthly lord; but with their soul in 
their work, serving the Lord in heaven, 
not men on earth: for the Lord 
accepts and rewards all good work, 
whether of the slave or of the free. 
And the masters must catch the 
same spirit: the threatening tone 
must be heard no more: they and 
their slaves have the same heavenly 
Lord, before whom these earthly dis- 
tinctions disappear’. 

1. Ta réxva] Comp. Col. iii 20 ra 
Tékva, UmaKoveTe Tois ‘yovetow KaTa 
Tavta, TovTo yap evapeoToy éoTw ev 
Kupi@. 

2. yrs eat Kt.r.| ‘which ts the 
Jirst commandment with promise’. 
The obvious interpretation of these 
words appears to be the best. It 
has been objected (1) that a kind of 
promise is attached to the second 
commandment of the Decalogue, and 
(2) that no other commandment has 
a promise attached to it after the 
fifth. It may be replied (1) that the 
appeal to the character of God in the 
second commandment is not properly 
speaking a promise at all, and (2) 
that many commandments, not of the 
Decalogue, have promises attached to 
them, so that the Apostle may be 
thought of as regarding these as the 
subsequent commandments which his 
expression implies. °EvroAy is not of 
necessity to be confined to one of the 
‘Ten Words’, When our Lord was 


asked Ioia éoriv évroAn mpern mavrov; 


*Kal ot warépes, pu mapopyicere 


He did not in His reply go to the 
Decalogue either for ‘the first’ or for 
‘the second, like unto it’ (Mark xii 
28 ff.). 

It is possible to understand mpery 
here, as in the Gospel, in the sense 
of the first in rank ; or, again, as the 
first to be enforced on a child: but 
neither interpretation gives a satis- 
factory meaning to the clause év éray- 
yeAia, unless these words be separated 


from mpern and connected closely with — 


what follows—‘with a promise that it 
shall be well with thee’, etc. This 
however is exceedingly harsh, and it 
breaks up the original construction 
of the quoted passage, where iva 
depends on Tiva «.t.X. 


.3. wa e xrd.] The quotation © 


does not correspond to the Hebrew 


text either of Ex. xx 12, ‘that thy © 


days may be long upon the land 
which the Lord thy God giveth thee’, 
or of Deut. v 16, ‘that thy days may 
be long, and that it may go well with 
thee, upon the land which the Lord 
thy God giveth thee’. St Paul quotes 
with freedom from one of the Lxx 
texts, which have themselves under- 
gone some change, due in part to 
assimilation: Ex. xx 12 wa ed co 
yévnra (these four words are omitted 
in A and obelised in ‘the Syro- 
hexaplar) cat iva paxpoxomos yévn emt 
Tis yas Ths dyabijs ijs Kupws 6 Oeds 
cov dideciv co: Deut. v 16 wa @& 
got yevntat Kal wa paxpoxpovos yévy 
(A; éon F; -oc fre B® sup. ras.) éxi 
Tis ys is Kupwos 6 beds cov didociv 
vou. 


émt ris ys] The omission of the © 


words which follow in the Lxx gives 
a different turn to this phrase: so 


\ 


; 


4 





VI 5—9] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 21f 


\ / e ~ \ / 
Ta Tekva vuwY, ara ExTpEpeTE avTa év matdecia Kal 


Noy@ecia Kypioy. 


e ~ 7 ~ 
5OQi dovAol, Vrakovere Tots Kata 


, J \ / \ / > € / ~ 
OapkKa Kuplols META oBou Kal Tpo“ou év amAoTNTt THs 
OL e oad e ~ ~ 6 | > » , 
KaPO0LAS UMWY WS TH XKPLOTW, “MN KAT op0adpodovaAtay 
c > / > > e ~ “ 5G \ 
Ws avOpwraperkot avn’ ws dSovAot XpirTov WOLOUYTES TO 
/ ~~ ~ ~ 

GérAnua Tov Oeov, éx ~ruxns 7yEr’ Eevvoias SovAEvovTes, Ws 
~ / | a e e 

T@ Kupiw Kai ok dvOpwrrois, * EiddTES OTL ExaoTos, édy 


/ / ~ , \ y 
Tt womon ayabov, TOUTO KopioeTa Tapa Kupiov, Eire 


dovAos ei're éNeUOEpos. 


that it may be rendered ‘on the 
earth’ instead of ‘in the land’. 

4. of marépes] Comp. Col. iii 21 
oi marépes, pr épedivere Ta Téxva VpOr, 
iva py dOvpacw. 


mapopyitere] See the note on 


_mapopyiorpe, iv 26. 


maideita] Comp. 2 Tim. iii 16 
apeAtuos mpos Siackadlay, mpos éAey- 
pov, mpos erravdpbwow, mpds traideiay 
thy ev Stkaoovvn. The word is not 
used elsewhere by St Paul, though he 
used the verb mraidevo, ‘to discipline’, 
or in a severer sense ‘to chastise’. 
Although the substantive may signify 
simply education or training, yet 
‘nurture’ (A.V.) is too weak a word 
for it in this place. It is better to 
render it ‘discipline’. Comp. Heb. 
xii II waoa pev madeia mpos pev TO 
mapov ov Soxei xapas eivar GdAa Ars. 

vovdecia| Comp. 1 Oor. x 11, Tit. 
jii 10. It is less wide in meaning 
than radeia, and suggests a warning 
admonition. With this injunction 
compare Didaché 4 ovx« dpeis rny 


- > ~ “~ talent Jeol," fol 
_ x€lpa cov amo Tov viod cov 7 amo Tis 


Gvyarpos wou, aAAa amo vedrnros dida- 
&eis Tov PoBov rov Geod. 

5. Of dSodAx}] Comp. Col. iii 22 
of SovAot, UmakoveTe Kata TavTa Tots 

\ , , A > > 
Kata oadpka kupiows, pn eév opadr- 

, € > U > > 

podovArias, ws avOpwrapeckot, add 
> c , , , A 
€v amdornte Kapdias, poBovpevor tov 
KUpLoY. 

oBov Kat rpdszov] Comp. 1 Cor. ii 
3 (of St Paul’s preaching), 2 Cor. vii 


9K 4 Cs / A 3 A ~ 
at ol KUPLOL, Ta QUTQ TWOUtTE 


15 (of the reception of Titus), Phil. ii 
12; and, for the corresponding verbs, 
Mark v 33 oBnOcioa kcal rpéuovca. 
The combination occurs several times 
in the Lxx. 

dm\dérntt] In 1 Chron. xxix 17 év 
dm\érqtt xapdias renders 1232 "WR, 
For this word and d@6adpodovAla see 
Lightfoot’s notes on Col. iii 22. 

6. dvOpwmapecxo:] Comp. Ps. lii 
[lili] 6 6 Oeds Sueokopmicev dora avOpa- 
mapeokav, Ps, Sol. iv 8 f. dvOp@rav av- 
Opwrapéckov...dvOpwmdperkov Aadody- 
Ta povov pera SdAov. See also Gal. i 
10, 1 Thess. ii 4. 

ék uxiis] Comp. Col. iii 22 6 
ea Trounre, ex Wuxis épyacerde, ds TO 
kupi@ Kal ovK dvOpe@mors. The parallel 
suggests that the phrase should here 
also be taken with what follows, and 
not, as in A.V., with what precedes. 
Moreover the preceding sentence is 
more forcible if ‘doing the will of God’ 
stands by itself as the interpretation 
of ‘as servants of Christ’. 

7. peT evvoias| "Ex uxifjs is opposed 
to listlessness: per evvoias suggests 
the ready good-will, which does not 
wait to be compelled. 

8. elSdres x.7.A.] Comp. Col. iii 24 
elddres Ort amd Kuplov dmoAnpuperGe 
THY dvrarodoow Tis KAnpovopias: TO 
kupl@ Xpror@ Sovdevere 6 yap adicav 
Kopicerat & WOiknoev, Kat ovK forw 
mpoowmoAnpyia. 

9. of xiptoc] Comp. Col. iv. 1 of 
kiptot, TO Sikavov kat thy lodryra Tois 


I4—2 


212 

TpOs avTOUS, 
Kal UM@Y Oo 
Anprvia ovK 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[VI 10, 11 


> / \ > f > / e/ \ > a 

aVIEVTES TIV GIrELANV, ELOOTES OTL KAL AUTOV 
> > ~ \ 

KUpLOS éoTiv é€y ovpavols, Kat TpoTwmo- 

/ > ~~ 

ECT TAN aVTO. 


rs Q ~ , Vea ~ 4 
Tob Nowrou évduvvapovobe Ev KUpiw Kal Ev TH KpaTeL 
~ Pat \ / a“ wn 
THS lo YVOS aVTOU. 1 éyducacbe THY TavoTAiav Tov GEeov 


SovAors wapéxebe, eidores Ste Kal vpeis 
EXETE KUPLOV EV OVPAVa. 

ra avra| i.e. ‘deal in like manner 
with them’. The phrase is not to be 
pressed too literally: it signifies in 
general, ‘act by them, as they are 
bound to act by you’. 

avévres| There is no parallel to 
this use of the verb in the Greek 
bible: but in classical Greek it is used 
either with the genitive or with the 
accusative in the sense of ‘giving up’, 
‘desisting from’. 

With this passage Wetstein com- 
pares Seneca T’hyest. 607 ‘Vos, quibus 
rector maris atque terrae Ius dedit 
magnum necis atque uitae, Ponite in- 
flatos tumidosque uoltus. Quicquid a 
uobis minor extimescit, Maior hoc 
uobis dominus minatur. Omne sub 
regno grauiore regnum est’. 

kat a’tav kal tpav| See the note 
on various readings. 

mpocwmoAnpwia| Comp. Acts x 34. 
See also Lightfoot’s note on Col. iii 
25. With the whole passage compare 
Didaché 4 ov« émiragers SovrA@ cov 
7 maidioxn, Tois émt tov adrov Geov 
eAmifovow, €v mikpia gov pote ov 
py poBnOncovra. rov ém’ duorépas 
Oedv: od yap epxerat KaTa mpocwroy 
Kadéoat, GAN éd’ ois Td mvedpa 7roi- 
pacer: vpeis dé of SodAOL Vroraynoeabe 
Tois Kupiots vuady, ws Timm Oeod, ev 
aicxivy Kai PdBo. 

10o—20, ‘My final injunction con- 
cerns you all. You need power, and 
you must find it in the Lord. You 
need God’s armour, if you are to 
stand against the devil. We have to 
wrestle with no human foe, but with 
the powers which have the mastery of 
this dark world: they are not flesh 


and blood, but spirit; and they wage 
their conflict in the heavenly sphere. 
You must be armed therefore with 
God’s armour, Truth and righteous- 
ness, a8 you know, are His girdle and 
breastplate ; and in these His repre- 
sentative must be clad. In the confi- 
dence of victory you must be shod 
with the readiness of the messenger 
of peace. With faith for your shield, 
the flaming arrows of Satan will not 
discomfit you. Salvation is God’s hel- 
met, and He smites with the sword 
of His lips. Your lips must breathe 
perpetual prayer. Prayer, too, is your 
watch, and it will test your endur- 


ance. Pray for the whole body of 


the saints: and pray for me, that my 
mouth may be opened to give my 
own message boldly, prisoner though. 
I be’. 

10. Tov Aowov] This is equivalent 
to 7rd Aowdv, with which St Paul 


frequently introduces his concluding — 


injunctions: see Lightfoot’s note on 
Phil. iii 1. For the variant 76 Aourov 


in this passage see the note on various — 


readings. 


évdvvayovabe| This verb is confined — 


in the New Testament to the Pauline 
epistles and one passage in the Acts, 
Zavdos dé paddov évedvvapoiro (ix 22): 
it appears in the Lxx rarely, and never 
without a variant. *Evdvvayodr (from 
évdvvayos) is scarcely distinguishable 
from Svvapoty (Col. i 11, Heb. xi 34), 
which is found as a variant in this 
place. 

II. mavordiay| ‘ Armour’, as con- 
trasted with the several pieces of the 
armour (dma). So it is rightly ren- 


dered in Luke xi 22 tiv mavordiav- 


> - 4 2742 - > , 
avrov aipe ep 7 émemoibe. 


Comp.. 


ie i 





en ae eee 





| VI 12] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


213 


\ \ } f. 6 e -~ ~ \ \ f ~ 
| mpos TO Ouvacbat Uuas oTHVaL mpos Tas peBodias TOU 
} f ne oh DE > af toa c U A e \ 

taBorou: “OTL ovK ExTW july 4 adn Teds aipa Kal 
/ p) \ \ \ 5) / \ \ 2 , | 

capka, a\X\a Tpos Tas apxXas, TpOS Tas é£ovctas, 70S 
\ 4 lo / , 

TOUS KOTMOKPaTOpAs TOU DKOTOVS TOUTOU, 7 pos Ta TvEv- 


mavorAiay xpuzqv ‘armour of gold’, 
2 Macc. xi 8; éréyywoay mporerro- 
, , A a , < 
kota Nikdvopa ovv tq mavomdia ‘they 
knew that Nicanor lay dead in his har- 


ness’, 2bid. xv. 28. It corresponds to 


the Latin armatura(=omnia arma). 
The rendering ‘whole armour’ (comp. 
‘complete harness’ 2 Macc. iii. 25) is 
redundant, and in the present pas- 
sage it distracts attention from the 
important epithet rod Geod. ‘ Put on 
God’s armour’ is the Apostle’s injunc- 
tion. His meaning is presently made 
clear by his quotations from the de- 
scription of the Divine warrior in Old 
Testament prophecy. For further 
illustrations of ravor)ia see the notes 
on vv. 13 f. 

peOodias] See the note on iv 14. 

12. mdadn] This word is not used 
by prose writers in the general sense 
of struggle or conflict. It always re- 
tains, except in a few poetical phrases, 
its proper meaning of ‘wrestling’. 
Theodore ad loc. says: ‘inconsequens 
esse uidetur ut is qui de armis om- 
nibus sumendis et bello disputauit 
conluctationem memoretur: sed nihil 
differre existimat, eo quod neque uera 
ratione de conluctatione aut de militia 
illi erat ratio’, etc. 

aiua kat cdpxa] Comp. Heb. ii 14 
Ta Tadia KeKoLWOrnkeV aiwaTos Kal cap- 
«és. The more usual order, capé kat 
aiza, is found in Matt. xvi 17, 1 Cor. 
xv 50, Gal.i.16. The expression occurs 
in Ecclus. xiv 18 odrws yevea capkds kal 
aipwaros, 7) pev TeAeuTG, érépa Oe yevva- 
rat, and xvii 31 (where it is paralleled 
by yf Kat omodds). J. Lightfoot, on 
Matt. xvi 17, says: ‘The Jewish writers 
use this form of speech infinite times, 
and by it oppose men to God’. He 
cites especially the phrase ‘a king of 


flesh and blood’. In the Book of 
Enoch (xx 4) the offspring of the 
angels who sinned with the daughters 
of man is described as‘ flesh and blood’ 
in contrast with ‘living spirits’. 

dpxyas x.r.A.] Comp. i 21, iii Io, 

kocpoxparopas] The word xocpoxpa- 
top has two significations. (1) ‘Ruler 
of the whole world’ : as in the Orphic 
Hymns in Sol. 11, in Pan. 11, and 
in a scholion on Aristoph. Nub. 397, 
Seadyywots 6 Baciteds tav Aiyurriov 
KoopoKkpdrap ‘yeyovas. In the Rab- 
binical writings the word is trans- 
literated and used in the same sense : 
as in Schir R., ‘three kings, cosmo- 
cratores, ruling from one end of the 
world to the other: Nebuchadnezzar, 
Evilmerodach, Belshazzar’; and of the 
angel of death in Vajikra R., where 
however Israel is excepted from his 
otherwise universal rule. (2) ‘Ruler 
of this world’: thus standing in con- 
trast to savroxparwp, ‘ruler of the 
whole universe.’ It corresponds to 
6 dpxov tod Koopov (rovrov), John 
xii 31, xiv 30, xvi 11, and to the 
Jewish title of Satan nown WY. Ac- 
cordingly we find the Valentinians 
applying it to the devil, Iren. (Mass.) 
i 5 4, dv Kal Koopoxparopa Kadovar, 

In 2 Mace. God is spoken of as 6 rod 
koopov Bacrrevs, Vii 9,and 6 Kvptos Tob 
kdopov, iii 14; and corresponding titles 
occur in the late Jewish literature. 
But no such expressions are used in 
the New Testament, where the world 
is commonly regarded as falsely as- 
serting its independence of God. ° All 
the kingdoms of the world and the 
glory of them’ are in the power of 
Satan (Matt. iv 8, Luke iv 6): only in 
the apocalyptic vision do we find that 


“ i cod 
éyévero 7 Bacthela TOU KOTpOU TOU KuU- 


214 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[VI 13, 14 


ra ~ 7 \ a“ 
uaTiKa Tis Tovnplas év Tots Eroupaviols. *301a TOUTO 


~ ~ ed land > 
dvadkaBeTe THY TavoTrALay TOU Geov, tva durnOyte avTi- 
~ > ~~ € 7 ~ cod \ e/ a a- 
oriva év TH jmepe TH TONPG Kat amavTa Karepy ms 
evo. oTHVaL. “OTHTE OUV TEPIZWCAMENO! THN OCOYN 


plov jpav Kal rod xpiorod adrov (Apoc. 
xi 15). God, on the other hand, is 
addressed as kvpte Tod odpavod Kal Tis 
yis (Matt. xi 25, Luke x 21). 

The second of the two meanings is 
alone appropriate here. It is not of 
world-wide rule, but of the rule of this 
world, that the Apostle speaks; and 
this is made clear by the addition of 
Tov okdrous Tovrov. The expression 
as a whole is not easy to render into 
another language. We find mundi- 
tenens in Tert. adv. Mare. v 18, adv. 
Valent. 22, de fuga 12; and mundi- 
potens in de anima 23, and in Hilary 
in ps. cxviii. But the ordinary Latin 
rendering is aduersus (huius) mundi 
rectores tenebrarum harum. The 
Peshito boldly paraphrases: ‘the 
rulers of this dark world’. This 
fairly represents the Apostle’s mean- 
ing: it is with the powers which rule 
this world, their realm of darkness, 
that we have to contend. In English 
‘the world-rulers of this darkness’ is 
hardly intelligible. The familiar ren- 
dering (though suggested by a faulty 
text, which added rot aidvos) suffi- 
ciently gives the sense: ‘the rulers 
of the darkness of this world’. 

ra mvevparika] ‘the spiritual hosts’ 
or ‘forces’. The phrase ra mvevparixa 
ths movnpias differs from ra mvedpara 
Ta movnpa in laying more stress upon 
the nature of the foe. The rendering 
‘hosts’ is preferable to ‘elements’, 
because it suggests personal adver- 
saries: ‘forces’, in the biblical sense, 
would be equally suitable, but to 
modern ears it has the same imper- 
sonal meaning as ‘elements’. 

€v Tois émovpaviois| Comp. i 20, ii 6, 
iii 10. The Peshito has ‘and with the 
evil spirits which are beneath the hea- 


vens’, implying a variant drovpaviots. 
The same rendering is found in ‘the 
Armenian version, so that it goes 
back to the Old Syriac, as is further 
shewn by its occurrence in Ephraim’s 
commentary. Theodore knew of this 
interpretation (prob. fromthe Peshito), 
but condemned it. 

13. avadaBere] Comp. Judith xiv 3 
ava\aBovres otro. Tas mavoTAias avTov: 
Joseph. Ant. iv 5 2 ras mavomXias ava- 
AaBovres evbéws exwpour eis TO Epyor, 
XX 5 3 KeAever TO OTpaTevpa may Tas 
mavotrAlas dvadaBov new els THY AvT@- 
viav, 


movnpa] Comp. v. 16 dre ai jpépar © 


movnpai elow: also Ps. xl (xli) 1 & 
npépa trovnpa (NY DV) pvcerar avrov 
6 KUpLOs. 


karepyacdpuevot] This verb is very © 


frequently used by St Paul, and 
always in the sense of ‘ producing’ or 
‘accomplishing’. It occurs 18 times 
in the Epistles to the Romans and the 
Corinthians; but in the later epistles 
only in Phil. ii 12 ryv €avtév cwrnpiav 
xarepyaterOe. Here therefore it is 
most naturally interpreted as ‘ having 
accomplished all that your duty re- 
quires’. There is no reason to desert 
the ordinary usage of the New Testa- 
ment for the rarer sense of ‘over- 
coming’, which occasionally occurs in 
the classical writers. The Latin ren- 
dering ‘in omnibus perfecti’ (om. in 
amiat.), if not a corruption of ‘omni- 
bus perfectis’, must be regarded as 
a loose paraphrase: Jerome in his 
commentary has ‘ uniwersa operati’. 
14. mepiCwoduevoe x7A.] With 
the description which follows com- 
pare 1 Thess. v 8 évducduevot Owpaxa 
miorews Kal ayanns kal mepixeadaiay 
éAriéa gernpias. Both passages are 


- 
ow 


See 











VI 15—17] 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


215 


e ~ > ' Nes ’ 
UMw@Y EN A\HOEI4, KaL ENAYCAMENO! TON OWDAKA TAC 


’ 15 Alert ») / \ ’ 2 e 
AIKAIOCYNHC, Kat UT7TO nO AMEVOL TOYC TOAAC €V ETOI- 


tf a 2 ' a > ’ 
Macla TOY eYyarreAloy TAC EIPHNHC, 


ey Twacw ava- 


/ \ \ n 7 e / 
AaBovtes Tov Oupeoy Tis TicTews, év wo SuInceaOe TAVTA 
\ / ~ ~ \ / , 
ta BéAn Tov Tovnpod Ta TeTUpwKéva TBéoa "Kai 


based on Isa. lix 17 éved¥caro Sdixat- 
oovyny was Owpaxa, kal mepiéOero mepi- 
keadaiay oarnpiov emt ris Kepadis. 
In our present passage the Apostle 
has also drawn upon Isa. xi 4 mara€e 
Viv TO AOy@ Tov oTdparos avrod, Kal év 
mvevpare dua yetkéwy avedet doeBi- Kat 
gota: Sixacoovyn éCwopévos thy oaopvy 
avrod, kal aAnOeia eiAnpuévos tas mAev- 
pas. On these passages is also founded 
the description of the Divine warrior 
in Wisd. v 18: Anuyera: mavomAiay Tov 
(HAov avrov, kal omAoroince THY KTioWw 
eis Guvvay éxOpav: évdticerar bwpaxa 
Scxatcoovynv, Kal mepiOnoerar Kopva 
Kplow dyvumoxkpiroy: Anuyerar domida 
dkatayexnrov oowrnra. 

15. éromacia| The word is used 
In the uxx for a stand or base: but 
it is also found in the following pas- 
sages, Ps: ix 38 (x 17) thy éropaciay 
Tis Kapdlas avtayv mpooécxev TO ods 
cov (Heb. ‘Thou wilt prepare (or 
establish) their heart, Thou wilt cause 
Thine ear to hear’), lxiv 10 (Ixv 9) 
Hroimacas THY Tpopny avTay, Ott ovTws 
7 érousagia aov (comp. Wisd. xiii 12 
eis érowpaciay Tpopis), Na. ii 4 éy 
nuépa érotacias avrov. The Apostle 
means to express the readiness which 
belongs to the bearer of good tidings. 
He has in his mind Isa. lii 7 mapecue 
Gs wpa emt Trav dpéwy, ds 1ddes Evay- 
yedrCopévov dkonv eipyyns, which in 
Rom. x 15 he quotes in a form nearer 
to the Hebrew, ws patio: of rides ray 
evayyeAtCopevar ayaba. 

16. év waow] For the variant éri 
macw see the note on various readings. 
Eri aoe occurs in the description of 
the Roman armour by Polybius (vi 23), 
ém Sé€ waat rovTos mpoweTikogpovvrat 
mrepive orepdve «.r.A. The meaning 


is, in any case, ‘in addition to all’: 
comp. Luke xvi 26 kat év maou rovrots 
perakv uav KT Dey where there is the 
same variant ézi. 

Bupedy] Comp. Polyb. vi 23 éor 
& 7 ‘Paopatey mavor\ia mparov pev 
bupeds, 08 TO pv mAdTos éaTl Tis KUp- 
Ths émipaveias wévO nurrrodiov, To dé 
pnkos Today terrapav: 6 dé peifwv, ere 
kat madaoriaios. The scutwm con- 
sisted, as he tells us, of two layers 
of wood glued together and covered 
first with linen and then with hide: 
it was bound with iron above and 
below, and had an iron boss affixed 
to it. The dois, or clypeus, was a 
round shield, smaller and lighter. 

memupwpéva oBéoa| Wetstein gives 
many examples of the use of flaming 
missiles: they were often employed 
to destroy siege-works, as well as to 
wound or discomfit individual soldiers. 
Thue. ii 75 mpoxadvppara eiye Séppecs 
kat Supbépas, dare Tovs épyatopevous 
kat ra &vAa pyre muphopois o.iorois 
BadrAcoOa €v doadreia re civar, Liv. 
xxi 8 ‘Phalarica erat Saguntinis mis- 
sile telum hastili abiegno et caetero 
tereti praeterquam ad extremum 
unde ferrum exstabat: id, sicut in 
pilo, quadratum stuppa circumliga- 
bant linebantque pice...id maxime, 
etiamsi haesisset in scuto nec pene- 
trasset in corpus, pauorem faciebat, 
quod cum medium accensum mit- 
teretur conceptumque ipso motu 
multo maiorem ignem ferret, arma 
omitti cogebat nudumque militem 
ad insequentes ictus praebebat’. The 
exact expression occurs in Apollodor. 
Bibl. ii 5 de Hercule: le Upay... 
Baroy Bédeot memupwpévors Hvayxacer 
éfedGciv. For the absence from some 


216 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. [VI 18—20 


’ A Uj / 

THN TIEPIKEDAAAIAN TOF C@THPIOY deFacbe, Kal THN 
U a ’ e/ yer a \ 
MAYAIPAN TOY TINEYMATOC, O EOTLY PAMA Ve0¥, 8 Sia 
, o 4 , / ? \ 
TATHS TPOTEVXNS Kal Seoews, MPOTEVYOMEVOL EV TrayTt 

nw \ ~ / 
Kalo@ €v mTvevpaTt, Kal els AUTO aypuTTVOUYTEs ev TaTN 

/ \ / \ / a e / 
TWPOTKAPTEPHTEL Kak OENoEL Tepl TAavTWY TwWY arylwy, 
"kal virep éuov, iva mot O00n Adyos ev dvoi~er TOV oTO- 
pts a abe ne aries f 
MaTOS [fov, EV Tappnoia yvwploat TO MUaTHPLOV TOU 
> / 20.¢ \ 2% / > e V4 e/ > 3 ~ 
evayyeAlou *umEep ou mpeo Bevw év aAvoel, iva Ey avTw 


Tappnoidocwuca ws det ue AaAHoaL. 


texts of the article before merupwpéva 
see the note on various readings. 

17. meptxesbadaiavk.t.A. | See 1 Thess. 
v8 and Isa. lix 17, quoted above. Td 
cewtnp.iov is found in Luke ii 30, iii 6, 
and in St Paul’s speech in Acts xxviii 
28: in each case it comes directly or 
indirectly from the Lxx. 

dé£ac6c] is here equivalent to Ad- 
Bere: comp. Luke ii 28, xvi 6 f., xxii 17 
(SeEdyevos mornpiov). 

THY paxaipav tov mvevpatos| The 
phrase is accounted for by Isa. xi 4 
(quoted above), though the actual 
words do not there occur. 

pjpa Oeod| For pjya see the note 
on v 26. Comp. Isa. xi 4 76 Ady@ 
Tov oTopatos avrov, and Heb. iv 12 
(av yap 6 Adyos Tov Oeod Kat evepyrs 
kal Top@Tepos vmép Tacay pdyatpay 
Sicropov, K.T.A. 

18. mpocevx7s] For the connexion 
of this with the pjya deod compare 
1 Tim. iv. 5 dyidferae yap dia Adyou 
Geod kat évrevEeas. 

dejoews] This word is joined with 
mpocevxy, for the sake of fulness of 
expression: see Phil. iv. 6, 1 Tim. ii 1, 
V5. 

év mvevpate| ‘in the Spirit’: see the 
note on v 18. 

eis avté] Comp. Rom. xiii 6 els 
avTO TOUTO mpocKapTepourTes, 

aypumvodytes|] *Aypumvety and ypn- 
yopeiv are both used in the Lxx to 
render 7p¥, ‘to keep awake’, ‘to 


watch’, Comp. Mark xiii 33 Adérere 
dypumveire, 35 ypnyopeire ovv, xiv 38 
yenyopetre Kal mpooevyerbe: Luke 
XXi 36 dypurveire év mravtt Katp@ Se0- 
pevot: and the parallel passage Col. 
iv 2 tH mpocevyn mpooKaprepeire, ypn- 
yopovrtes ev avrn €v evyaptoria. 

mpookaptepjae:] The verb is com- 
mon, but no independent reference 
for the noun is given. 

19. Kal vrép euov] The change 
from epi to vmép helps to mark the 
introduction of the special request: 
but there is no real difference of 
meaning, as may be seen from the 
parallel, Col. iv 3, mpovevyopevor aya 
kal Tepl Huay, iva K.T.A. 

Aoyos «r.A. Comp. Col. iv 3 iva 
6 beds dvoitn nyiv Ovpay tod Aoyou, 
and Ps. 1 (li) 17 ra xeiAn pov avoi- 
Seis, kal TO oTdOpa pov avayyedet TIy 
avveciv cov. 

pvotnpiov| Comp. Col. iv 3 f. AadF- 
gat TO pvoTHnpLoy Tov xpiorod, Sv Oo Kal 
ddeua, iva havepdow attd ws Sei pe 
Aadjoa. For pvorjpioy see i 9, and 
the references there given. For the 
absence from some texts of rod evay- 
yeAiov see the note on various readings. 

20. mpeoBevw| Comp. 2 Cor. Vv 20 
tmép Xpiorod ovv mpecBevopuer. 

ev advoe| Comp. Acts xxviii 20 
eivexev yap ths édmidos Tod “Iopand rip 
GdAvow ravtny wepikerpat, 2 Tim. i. 16 
THY dAvoly pov ovK ératoxuvOn. 

21—24. ‘Tychicus will tell you 


Re na ee 


SOR SS SS 


OO Ot aN cat Sool 





—- 


VI 21—24] EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


217 
e/ \ IQVr \ ~ \ 
*“Tva o€ eOnTe Kal Upels Ta Kat’ eu, TL Tpacow, 
V4 , ea / e 3 \ r) \ \ 
TavTa yvwpioe: vuiv Tuyikos 0 ayamntos adeApos Kat 
\ UA / A f nt 
TieTos Oiakovos évy Kupiw, “ov Emeurva mpos vas eis 
\ ~ e/ a % \ ~ 
aiTO TOUTO iva YyvwOTE TA TEpl uw Kal Tapakadéon 
‘ 





\ , ¢ La 
Tas Kapolas UMW. 


2 ts ~~ ~ \ >’ 
*3Eionyn tots ddeAdots Kat ayarn peta TicTEews 


5) \ A A \ , > ~ A 
aro Qeou matpos Kat kuptou ‘Incov Xpiorou. 


a4 “TT 


7 \ , ~ , od 
xapis MeTa TavTwWY TMV dyaTwVTwWY TOY KUpLOY nuaV 
> io A > > , 

Incovv Xpirrov év aplapcia. 


how I fare. I am sending him to 
bring you information and encourage- 
ment. I greet all the brethren with 
one greeting: peace be theirs, and 
love joined with faith. Grace be 
with all who love our Lord in the 
immortal life in which He and they 
are one’, 

21. “Iva déx.7.A.] Almost the same 
words occur in Col. iv 7 f.: ra Kar’ eye 
mavra yvopioe: vpiv TUxeKos 6 dyamnros 
adedos kal muords Suakovos, kai cvvdov- 
hos €v Kupi@, ov emeuwya mpos vuas eis 
avro TovTo, va yvare Ta wept nav Kal 
mapakxadéon Tas kapdias tyov. On the 
phrases common to both passages it is 
sufficient to refer to Lightfoot’s notes. 

kai vets] This may be taken in 
two senses: (1) ‘ye also’, ie. as well 
as others to whom the Apostle is 
sending a letter at the same time 
and by the same messenger: for 
although this meaning would not be 


~ at once obvious to the recipients of 


this letter, the words might naturally 
be used by the Apostle if he were 
addressing a like statement to the 
Colossians : (2) ‘ye on your part’, with 
an implied reference to the knowledge 
which the Apostle had gained of their 
condition (i 15 dxovoas thy Kad” das 
giorw «.7.A.). The latter interpreta- 
tion, however, is somewhat forced, 
and the former is rendered the more 
probable by the close similarity be- 
tween the parallel passages in the 
two epistles. 


ti mpacca| ‘how I fare’: as in 
the common phrase ed mparrewv. But 
there is no parallel to this usage in 
the New Testament; for in Acts xv 29 
ev mpaéere appears to be used in the 
sense Of xaos troujoere. 

23. trois ddedgois] The term dded- 
gos was taken over by Christianity 
from Judaism. See Acts ii 29, 37, 
iii 17, vii 2, etc., where it is addressed 
byaJew toJews, Similarly before his 
baptism Saul is addressed by Ananias 
as addeAdos, Acts ix 17. Here the 
general term takes the place of the 
special names which occur in most of 
the epistles addressed to particular 
Churches. 

ayamn peta tmictews| Love accom- 
panied by faith, Faith and love the 
Apostle looked for and found among 
those to whom he writes: see i 15, 
and comp. Col. i 4. He prays that 
they may together abide with them. 

24. yxapis| The familiar doracpos, 
with which St Paul closes every 
epistle (see 2 Thess. iii 17 f), takes 
here a more general form and is 
couched in the third person. This 
is in harmony with the circular na- 
ture of this epistle. 

év ddOapcia] "ApOapoia signifies 
indestructibility, incorruptibility, and 
so immortality. “Ad@apros and a- 
éapoia are used of the Deity; eg. 
by Epicurus ap. Diog. Laert. x 123, 
mparov pev tov beiv (Gov adpOaprov 
kal paxdpiov vopitwr (ads 1% Kown Tov 


218 


Geod vonois vreypadn) pynOév pyre THs 
addOapoias adAdrpioy pyre tis paKapto- 
THTOs Gvoikevoy avT@ mpocanres Trav 
d€ ro gvAarrew avrov dSuvapevoy thy 
pera abOapoias pakapiornra mept adrov 
dofa¢e: and Plutarch, Aristides 6, rd 
Geiov rpiot Soxei Svadépew, adpbapoia 
kat Suvdper kai dpern. They are like- 
wise used by the Stoics of the xoopos; 
Chrysippus ap. Plut. Moral. 425 D, 
ovxX HKLoTa TovToy (sc. the péos Toros 
in which the xcéopos is situated) cvv- 
eipyerOat mpos tHv Stapovny Kai oiovel 
apOapciay: and by the Epicureans of 
their atoms. [Comp.the title of Philo’s 
treatise, Ilepi dpOapoias xécpov.] 

In the Greek Old Testament 4- 
pOapros occurs twice: Wisd. xii 1 76 
yap GpOaprdv cov mveipa éeotw ev 
Tact, XVili 4 76 GpOaprov vopov das. 
The same writer in two notable pass- 
ages connects the dd@apcia granted 
to men with the ddéapcia of God’s 
own nature: ii 23 f. dri 6 Beds Exricev 
Tov avOpwmov én’ apbapaia, Kai eixova 
tis idias ididrnros (v. 1. dididrnros) 
eroingev avtov: POdvm dé diaBdrov 
Oavaros cian dOev eis Tov Kdcpor, K.T.A., 
vi 18 f. dydmn S€ typnots vopewv adrijs 
(sc. ths codias), mpocoyy dé vopeoy 
BeBaiwors apbapcias, apOapcia dé eyyvs 
elvat mrovet Geov. The only other ex- 
amples are found in 4 Mace. (of men 
who pass to an immortal life), ix 22 
@orep €v mupt peracxnpariCopevos els 
ap@apciay, xvii 12 7Od0b€rer yap rére 
dpern de vrropovijs Soxipatovea TO vikos 
ev apOapoia €v (om modvxpovio. Sym- 
machus used the word in the title of 
Ps. Ixxiv (Ixxv), émwixios wept dpOap- 
cias Wadpuds (LXX pi) Siadbeipns). 

So far then the meaning of d@éapros 
(apOapcia) is clear, and there is no 
tendency to confuse it with adpOopos 
(aPOopia). The latter adjective occurs 
once in the txx: Esther ii 2 (yrn6yjro 
tT@ Baowet Kopdoia apOopa xara ro 
cider (comp &. 3 Kopdowa rapbeika Kaa 
T@ €tdet). 

In the New Testament we find 
dpéapros used of God, Rom. i 23 
HAAragav rv ddkav rov apOdprov beod 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 


év Gpormpare eixovos Pbaprod avOpwrov, 
1 Tim. i 17 d@Odpr@ dopar@ pore bed: 
and of the dead after resurrection, 
1 Cor. xv 52 éyepOnoovra adpOapro. 
It is also used as an epithet of 
orehavos (I Cor. ix 25), xAnpovopia 
(1 Pet. i 4), and omopa (ib. 23; comp. 
iii 4). The substantive occurs in 
1 Cor. xv 42 omeiperac é€v dopa, 
eyelperat ev apOapaia, 50 ovdé 7 Pbopa 
thy apOapoiay KAnpovopei, 53 Set yap 
To POaprov rovro évdicacba adpGap- 
giav, kat To Oynrov tovto évdicacOat 
adéavaciav. It occurs again in Rom. 
ii 7 rois pév Kal’ drropovny Epyou ayabod 
do0fav Kal trysny Kat apbapaciay (nrovor, 
Conv aidvov, 2 Tim.i 10 carapyjoavros 
pev tov Oavarov, porticavros d€ Cwny 
kat apOapaiav dia rod evayyedlov. (In 
Tit. ii 7 it has been interpolated after 
apOopiay, cwepvornra,—having come 
in probably as a marginal gloss on 
ag Oopiar.) 

In all these passages there can be no 
doubt as to the meaning of d@@apcia. 
If (w7 aiwmos is the life-principle 
which is already at work, adéapcia is 
the condition of immortality which 
will crown it in the future. 

The use of the word in the epistles 
of Ignatius deserves a special con- 
sideration, if only because we find in 
Rom.7 the expression dydamrn apOapros. 
In Eph. 15 f. Ignatius is speaking of 
false teaching and false living as de- 
structive of the ‘temples’ of God, with 
an allusion to 1 Cor. iii 17 ef rus rov 
vaov tov Oeod POeiper, x.r.A. He de- 
clares that oi oixopOdpo, those who 
violate God’s house, forfeit the king- 
dom of God. If this be so for the 
bodily temple, still more does it hold 
of those who ‘violate (f6eipew) the 
faith of God by evil teaching’. They 
and their hearers are defiled and shall 
go into the unquenchable fire. He 
proceeds : Ava rotvro pdpov édaBev eri 
Tis Kepadfs avrov 6 kipios, va mvéq 
Th exkAnoia apbapoiay. He is playing 
upon the two senses of Oecipew, 
physical destruction and moral cor- 
ruption: but that the sense of in- 


[VI 24 ; 











VI 24] 


corruptibility or immortality predomi- 
nates when the word ddéapcia is 
introduced is shewn by the contrasted 
dvowdia ris diAackadias of the devil, 
who would carry us away ‘from the 
life which is the goal set before us’ 
(€k tov mpoxerpevov (nv). The phrase 
has a noteworthy parallel in Iren. iii 
11 8 ravrayobev rvéovras rHv apbapoiav 
kal dvaCwmupovvras Tovs adv9pw@movs (of 
the four Gospels): comp.i 4 I andi61; 
the metapher being perhaps derived 
from the Xpiorod evwdia and the dop7 
ex Cans eis Cony of 2 Cor. ii 15 f. 

In Magn. 6 we have eis rimoy kai 
didaxnv apOapoias, but the context 
does not throw fresh light on the 
meaning of the word. Philad. 9 r6 
d€ evayyéAtov amdpricpa eotw adpOap- 
oias recalls 2 Tim.i1o. In 7Jraill, 11 
hv Gy 6 Kapros attav apOapros stands 
in contrast with xaprév Oavarnddpor. 
In Rom. 7 we have ovy 7dopar rpop7 
pOopas followed by ropa Oéd\o ro aipa 
avrov, 6 éotiw aydrn adpOapros. In 
this passage we have a combination 
of the ideas which appear separately 
in Trall. 8 év dyarn, 6 éorw aia Incod 
Xprorod, and Eph. 20 €va dprov kdartes, 
5 éotw dappaxoy aOavacias, dvridoros 
Tov pi dmoOavety adda Cny ev “Incod 
Xpiore dia mavrds. [Comp. Clem. 
Alex. Paed. i 47 6 dpros...eis ap@ap- 
ciayv tpépov.| Both the déavacia and 
the apéapcia of Ignatius are lifted 
out of the merely physical region by 
the new meaning given to ‘life’ by the 
Gospel: but the words retain their 
proper signification in the higher 
sphere, and still mean freedom from 
death and from dissolution. "Ap@apocia 
is not confused with ddOopia or 
ddvapbopia, so as to denote freedom 
from moral corruptness. 

I cannot point to any passage in 
the writers of the second century in 
which apGapros and aféapcia are used 
of moral incorruptness, though the 
words are common enough in the 
usual sense of immortality (see Athe- 
nag. de Res. passim). On the other 
hand a6opor occurs in a well-known 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 


219 


passage of Justin (Ap. i 15, comp. 
adi bopa ibid. 18). 

Since, however, déecipew and héopd 
express the physical and moral ideas 
which are negatived in d@éapcia and 
ap@opia respectively, it was quite 
possible that ddéapcia should come 
to be regarded as denoting not only 
the indissolubility of eternal life, but 
also the purity which Christian thought 
necessarily connected with eternal life. 
And this may explain the uncertainty 
which attends Origen’s use of the 
word in some passages. Thus in his 
treatise on Prayer, § 21, we read ra 
SuePOappéva Epya 7} Adyous 7) vonpara, 
Tamewa Tvyxdvovta kal énidnrra, THs 
apGapoias dAdorpia rod xKvpiov. He 
seems again to play on two possible 
senses of ap@apcia in c. Cels. iii 60, 
where our present passage is referred 
to: émei d€ Kal 7 xdpis Tod Oeov eatt 
peta travrwv tov é€v apOapoia ayarav- 
tov Tov diddacKadov Tov THs @Bavacias 
paOnpareyr, ‘doTis dyvos’ ov povoy ‘amd 
mavros pvaovs’ (the words of Celsus), 
G\Ad kal Tov éAatrover elvar voyuto- 
pévov dpaptnuatrev Oappav pveicba, 
x7t.A. In his Commentary (on this 
verse) Origen combats an extreme 
view which interpreted dd@apcia as 
implying strict virginity. He does 
not reply, as he might have replied, 
that in Scripture aféapcia is always 
used of immortality; but he suggests 
that déopa is predicable of any sin, 
so that dpéapcia might be implying 
absolute freedom from sin of any 
kind: dare rovs adyama@vras Tov KUptoy 
jpav Incoov Xpiorov ev apOapaig eivat 
rovs maons auaptias amexouevous. The 
later Greek commentators also in- 
terpret dd@apcia in this place of 
incorruptness of life. The Latin 
commentators, who had in incorrup- 
tione tointerpret, sometimes preferred 
to explain it of soundness of doctrine, 
but with equally little justification 
from the earlier literature. 

How then are the words to be 
understood? It has been proposed 
to connect them with 7 xdprs, so that 


220 


the Apostle’s final prayer should be 
an invocation of xapis év dpOapcia, i.e. 
of grace together with that blessed 
immortality which is the crowning 
gift of grace. But this cannot be 
regarded as a natural expansion of 
his accustomed formula, even if the 
disposition of the sentence be not 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


[VI 24 


fatal to this interpretation. It is 
better to keep the words ev adéapcia 
closely with rév dyardyrav riv xipiov 
nav Incovv Xpiorov, to render them 
‘in incorruptibility’, and to explain 
them as meaning ‘in that endless 
and unbroken life in which love has 
triumphed overdeath and dissolution’, 





SO ee es ee 





ON XAPIZ AND XAPITOYN. 221 


On the meanings of yapis and yapsrodv. 


I. XApic. 


1. The word xapis has a remarkable variety of meaning even in the Meanings 


earliest Greek literature. It is used in classi- 


es 3 cal litera- 
(1) objectively, of that which causes a favorable regard, attractive- ture: 


ness: especially (a) grace of form, gracefulness ; and (b) grace 
of speech, graciousness : 

(2) subjectively, of the favorable regard felt towards a person, 
acceptance or favour: 

(3) of a definite expression of such favorable regard, a favour (yapuv 
dodvat) : 

(4) of the reciprocal feeling produced by a favour; the sense of 
favour bestowed, gratitude (xapw dmodobva, «idévat, Zyetv) : 

(5) adverbially, as in the phrases ydpw ros, ‘for the sake of a 
person, or a thing’; mpos xadpiv rivi te mparrewy, ‘to do some- 
thing to please another’. 

Greek writers of all periods delight to play upon the various meanings Play on 
of the word ; as in such sayings as 7 ydpis xdpw hépec. meanings. 


The Greek translators of the Old Testament used yapis almost exclus- The Greek 
ively as a rendering of the Hebrew jf, a word connected with }2M ‘to O. 7. 
incline towards’, and so ‘to favour’. 

Thus in the Pentateuch we find the phrase evpeiy ydpw (20 times, Penta- 
besides Zyew xdpw, for the same Hebrew, once) and the phrase dodva: teuch. 
xapw (five times); each being regularly followed by a term expressive 
of relation to the favouring person, évayriov tivds, €vdrriov Twos OF Tapa TNX. 

In Ruth and the books of Samuel we have evpeiv yap ev ddpOadpois Ruth and 
rivos (12 times), where the same Hebrew phrase of relation is more Samuel. 
literally translated}. 

Up to this point we have no other use of the word at all. In Kings Kings and 
and Chronicles however, besides evdpeiv ydpiv evavriov (once), we twice find Chroni- 
xapw used as an adverb. ass 

In Esther, besides evpeivy ydpw (six times: once for 7D/], and once for Esther. 
this and {0 together), we have xdpis used for Mp7) in vi 3, riva ddgav jj 
xdpwv éroujoapev x.t.d.. ‘What honour and dignity hath been done to 
Mordecai for this?’ (A.V.). In a Greek addition xv 14 (=v 2) we read ré 
Tpocanrov cov xapirwy peaTov. 


1 This rendering is found once in the Pentateuch, Gen. xxxiii 8. 


222 


Favor- 
able esti- 
mation 
by a 
superior. 


Psalms: 
extended 
meaning. 


Proverbs: 


accepta- 


bility with 


God and 
man. 


Ecclesi- 
astes. 


In the 
Prophets 
almost 
unused. 


Wisdom 
literature : 
joined 
with 
‘mercy’. 


Enoch : 
with 


‘light’and 


‘peace’. 


The N. T. 
writers 
inherited 
both 
Greek 
and He- 
braistic 
uses : 
esp. ‘ the 
blessing 
conse- 
quent on 
Divine 
favour’. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


The distinctive meaning then of ydpis as representing jf in the historical 
books of the Old Testament is the favour which an inferior finds in the eyes 
of his superior. It is to be noted that dodvac xdpw is here correlative to 
evpeiv yap. It does not mean ‘to favour’, but ‘to cause to be favoured’ 
by another. It thus differs altogether from the true Greek phrase dotva 
xdpu, ‘to grant a favour’, 

In the Psalms the word occurs twice only: xliv (xlv) 2 é£exvdn [1] 
xapis év xeiAeow cov, 1xxxiii (Ixxxiv) 11 yap cai ddfav ddce. In each case 
it renders jf}, which has acquired a certain extensiou of meaning. 

In Proverbs we find it 21 times, the plural being occasionally used. 
Thrice it renders {}¥3, which is commonly represented by evdoxia. The 
general meaning is favour or acceptance in a wide sense, as the condition 
of a happy and successful life. Such ydpis is as a rule the accompaniment 
of wealth and high station: but God gives it as a reward of humility, iii 34 
rarrewois d€ Sidwoww yapw!. 

In Ecclesiastes xdpus is used twice for }i], and again the sense is wide. 

It is remarkable that in Isaiah, Jeremiah and (with few exceptions) 
the Prophets generally ydps is not found at all. The exceptions are 
three passages in Zechariah (always for jf), iv 7, vi 14 and xii 10 (ékyeo... 
mvedpa xapiTos Kai oixrippod); Dan. i 9 edwxe...ryuny Kal xdpwv (BNI) evar 
riov...(Theodot....eis €Aeov kal olxrecppov évdmiov...); and Ezek. xii 24, the 
adverbial phrase zpos xdpuv. 

In the Wisdom books we find, as we might expect, a more extended 
use of the word: and the sense which corresponds with jf} appears side 
by side with various Greek usages. It is specially noteworthy that twice 
we have the combination ydpis cal ¢deos [év] rots éxAextois avrod (Wisd. 
iii 9, iv 15). 

With this last expression we may compare Enoch v 7, 8 kai rots éxex- 
trois otras das Kal yxapis Kal elpyvn...trére SoOnoerar rois éxAexrois pas 
kal xapts. 


It appears from the foregoing investigation that the New Testament 
writers inherited a wealth of meanings for the word ydpis : 


(a) the purely Greek significations, which were familiar to all who used 
the Greek language, but which to some extent fell into the background, in 
consequence of the appropriation of the word to a specially Christian use; 

(6) the significations which the word had acquired through its use by 
the Greek translators of the Old Testament to represent }i7. 

Of the latter significations the most important was that which we find 
in the latest books, namely, the favour of God, or rather the blessed condi- 
tion of human life which resulted from the Divine favour—a sense in which 
the word came, as we have seen, to range with such spiritual blessings as 
€Xeos, has and elpyvn. 


1 This phrase needs to be considered 
in the light of what has been said of 
Sodvar xdpw évavriov rwds (see Gataker 
Cinnus, ed. Lond. 1651, p. gof.); but 


allowance must be made for the more 
independent use of xydpis without a term 
of relation in the later Old Testament 
literature. 


PE Oa ar 





Ppa gE tb te ” " 


ee eae 


ee 





ON XAPIZ AND XAPITOYN. 223 


Turning now to the New Testament, we observe that the word is not Distribu- 
found in the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark; but that it occurs in tion in the 
every other book, with the exception of the First and Third Epistles of Abdadeeg 
St John’. We may consider first those writers whose phraseology is in oar ai: 
general most remote from that of St Paul. 

In St John's Gospel xapis is found only in the Prologue: i 14 rAypys St John’s 
xapiros Kai alinOeias...16 €x Tov TAnpw@paros avTov nets mdvres €AaBopev Kai Gospel : 
xXadpw dyti xapiros...17 9 xapis kal 7 GAnGea ba “Incod Xpiorod éyévero. only in the 
These verses are closely connected and offer a single emphatic presenta- Prologue. 
tion of ydpis as a blessing brought to man by Jesus Christ. Grace and 
truth together stand in contrast to the law as given through Moses. 

A fulness of grace and truth pertains to ‘the Word made flesh’, Out 
of that fulness we all have received: we have received ‘grace for grace’— 
that the gift in us may correspond with the source of the gift in Him, 

The only other occurrences of the word in the Johannine writings do Other 
not help us to interpret the words of the Prologue. In 2 John 3 we have Johannine 
merely the greeting ydpis, ZAcos, elpyvy (comp. the Pastoral Epistles). In >°°k*. 
the Apocalypse we have the salutation yapis kal eipyvy dro 6 dy, k.t.d., and 
the closing benediction, 1 ydpis rot xuptov “Incod Xpiotov pera trav ayior, 
in each case Pauline phrases with a peculiar modification. 

The Epistle of St James contains the word only (iv 6) in an allusion to St James. 
and a quotation from Prov. iii 34 (see above). 

In Jude 4 we read rip rov Oeod xdpira petraribévres eis doéXyecav, This St Jude. 
form of the accusative is not found elsewhere in the New Testament, 
except in Acts xxiv 27. Xdpis does not occur in the opening salutation 
of the epistle (@Acos vuiv kai elpyym kat dyann mAnOvvGein). It is observable 
that the whole of the phrase above quoted, with the exception of the word 
doé\yera, is absent from the parallel passage, 2 Pet. ii 1 ff In 2 Peter, 2 St Peter. 
however, we have the salutation ydpis dyiv cal elpyyy mdyOvvGein, and in 
iii 18 the injunction av€dvere dé év yapirt Kal yodores TOD Kupiov nuav. 

We now come to the Lucan books, in the latter of which at any rate St Luke’s 
we shall be prepared to find tokens of the direct influence of St Paul. In Gospel : 
Luke i 30 the angelic salutation Xaipe, xeyaptrapévy is followed by cdpes opening 
yap xdpw rapa 7G Oeg, a purely Hebraistic expression. In li 40 we read ie ae: 

: See ost a eae ay es : A ‘ ebraistic 
of the Child Jesus, yapis Oeod A» em’ adrd: and in ii 52 “Incovs mpoexorrer yo, 
TH copia cal Arckia Kal xdpire mapa Oe@ Kai dvOpamos (comp. I Sam. ii 26 
rT} maiSdpiov SapoviA eropevero peyaduyopevov kat dyaOoy, kai pera Kupiov 
kal pera dvépdrev). The phraseology of the first two chapters of St Luke’s 
Gospel is largely derived from the historical books of the Old Testament : 
and these uses of yapis are characteristically Old Testament uses. In iv 22, 
eOatpatov émt rois yous Ths xapiTos, KT.A., we have another obvious Later on, 


Hebraism. But the remaining examples of the word give us purely atiee! 


1 No account is here taken of ex- the Vulgate and the Bohairic. For a 


amples of xdpw used adverbially with 
a genitive. In 3 John 4 weforépay 
rovTwy obk éxw xapday, it seems im- 
possible to accept the reading xdpuw, 
which is found in B, a few cursives, 


confusion between the same words see 
Tobit vii 17 xdpw dvrl rijs NUTNS Tou 
ravrns [xapdv &], Ecclus. xxx 16 xdpw 
N1, xapdv N°ABC. 


224 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Greek usages: moia tpiv xapis éoriv; (Vi 32, 33, 34): wn Exer xdpw Td Soto 
Ore érroingey ta SiarayOevra; (XVvii 9). 
The Acts: Inthe Acts we find in the earlier chapters clear instances of the Old 
Hebraistic Testament use of ydpis: ii 47 €xovres xdpw mpos ddrov rdv adv, Vii IO 
ver Cdwxev aire xapw kal codiav évarvriov apaw, Vii 46 etpev xdpw évamtov 
tov Oeov. Perhaps we should add to these iv 33 xdpis re peyadn Av emt 
mavtas avrovs, and vi 8 Srépavos 8€ mAnpyns xapiros Kal Suvduews érroiet 
répara, k.t.A. ; but it is possible that we have here a distinctively Christian 
Greek use of the word. Of purely Greek usages we have ydpira xarabéoOar in 
“ee xxiv 27, and ydpw xarabéoOa in xxv 9; also airovpevo. yap kar adrov in 
xxv 3 (comp, the use of xapifer@a: in xxv 11, 16). 
The new But there is another class of passages in the Acts in which ydpis is 
Christian found in a new and Christian sense. The first of these is xi 23, where 
meaning: we read of St Barnabas at Antioch, idav rv xdpw thy tov Oeod éxdpn. 
The emphatic form of the expression helps to mark the introduction of the 
new phrase: and it may be observed that, wherever throughout the book 
the word occurs in this sense, it is (with the single exception of xviii 27) 
followed by a defining genitive. The passages are the following: 
xiii 43 mpoopévery TH xapiTe Tov Geo, 
xiv 3 1 kupio To paptupodyTe TSG Oy Ths xapiros avrod, 
26 dev Hoav mapadedopévor TH xapitt TOU Geo, 
xv 11 ia rijs xdpiros Tov Kupiov “Inco murrevopev cwOjvat Kad? ov 
TpOToVv Kakeivot, 
40 mapadobels tH xadpite Tov Kupiov, 
xviii 27. cuveBadero woAd Tois memioTevKdow Sia THs xapiTos, 
Xx 24 StapapripacOa Tb evayyéAvov THs xapitos Tod Oeod, 
32 maparidepa duds To Kupim Kal TE Ady THs xXdpiTos avrod. 


in con- It is noteworthy that this use of yapis belongs to the narratives which 
nexion § deal with the extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles: see especially xv 11. 
ian The surprising mercy of God, by which those who had been wholly outside 


of the the privileged circle were now the recipients of the Divine favour, seems 
Gentiles. to have called for a new and impressive name which might be the watch- 
word of the larger dispensation. 
St Paul Although it is not probable that the introduction of xdpis into the 
developes Christian vocabulary was due to St Paul, yet there can be little doubt 
the term that the new and special use of it which we have just noted was closely 
connected with his missionary efforts, and that he did more than any one 
_ toexpress to develope the meaning of ydps as a theological term. To him, for 
elem example, we owe the emphasis on the jreeness of the Divine favour 
and unj. Which is marked by the contrast of ydpis with dpetAnpa, ‘debt’, and 
versality With ¢pyoy in the sense of meritorious ‘work’; and the emphasis on 
of the the universality of the Divine favour, which included Gentiles as well as 
Gospel. Jews, in contrast to ‘the law’ which was the discipline of Israel. 
His Moreover he seems in some sense to have appropriated the word, as 
Pot though he had a peculiar claim and title to its use. The first of his epistles 
wordin Opens and closes with an invocation of yapcs upon his readers: and every 
connexion subsequent epistle follows the precedent thus set. In 2 Thess. iii 17 f. he 
with his declares that this may be regarded as his sign-manual, authenticating as it 


Fir TaN re RET Om 


NESE LDL ITO TORE 


\ 





ON XAPIZ AND XAPITOYN. 225 


| were his epistle: ‘O doracpods rh éyj xeupt Mavdov, 5 eotw onpeiov ev macy special 
emiarodfi* ovTws ypapa 1) xdpis TOU Kupiou tyuav "Inood Xpicrod pera mdvrey Mission : 
ULOV. 

The following series of passages will serve to shew how closely he 
connected the word with his own special mission to the Gentiles. 


(a) In regard to himself as proclaimer of the universal Gospel. (a) in re- 
gard to 


1 Cor. iii 10 card thy xdpw rod Oeod rHy B0bciody pot, ds gopos apxt- himself 
’ 


réxtov Oepediov €Onxa. 

I Cor. xv Io xapirt Oé Oeod eiud 6 els, Kat j xdpis avrov 7 eis eué 
ov Kev) éyevnOn, adda Tepioodrepov avrav Tdvtwv éxoriaca, otk éeyd 8é 
dAAG 7 xXapis Tod Beod [7] ody epoi. 

2 Cor. i 12 ovx év codia capkicR GAN’ év xdpire Oe0d dveorpadnpev ev 
T@ KOopL@, Tepraorépws Sé mpds dpas. 

2 Cor. iv 15 ra yap mavra Sv vpas, va 1 yxdpis TACovdoaca Sia Tar 
Trevovev Ti evxapioriay Tepiccedvon eis tiv SéEav Tod Oeod. 

Gal. i 15f. 6 ddopioas pe...xcat xadécas did ris xdpiros avrod...iva 
evayyeniCopat avroy év trois eOverw. 

Gal. ii 7 f. iddvres drt memioreypa Td evayyéduoy Ths dxpoBvoTias...«cal 
yvovres THY xapw THy Sobeioay pot. 

Gal. ii 21 ovK adOerad rHy yap Tov Oeov- ef yap dia vopov x.T.A. 

Rom. i 5 &¢ ot éAdBoper yapiv Kal arocroAny els vmaxony tictews év 
macw Tots €Ovecty. 

_Rom. xii 3 eyo yap 51a ths xaperos ths Sobeions Hot mavtt tT Svre ev 
vpiv: that is, with all the force of my special commission and authority, 
to you to whom it gives me a right to speak. The phrase is taken up 
again in 2. 6. 

Rom. xv 15 os éravapipvycKoyv tpas, dia THY xdpw rhv Sobciody por 
amo Tov Geos eis Td eival pe Aecroupydv Xpiorov "Inaod eis ra €Ovn. 

Phil. i 7 & re rots Seopois pov kal é€v tH dmodoyia cat BeBawdoe. rod 
evayyeAlov cuvKowvvovs pov Tis xapiros mavras vas dvras. It was for 
the wider Gospel that St Paul was bound. 

See also Eph. iii 1—13, and the exposition. 

(b) In regard to the Gentile recipients of the universal Gospel. (d) in re-. 


; p : ‘ rd to his 
2 Thess. i 12. The persecution which the Thessalonians suffer is a Gentile 


proof that ‘the kingdom of God’, for which they suffer, is truly for them. converts. 
They as believers are equated with ‘the saints’: in them, no less than 

in Israel (Isa. xlix 3), the Name is to be glorified—‘the Name of the 

Lord Jesus in you, and ye in Him’, card tiv xapw tod Oeot judy kai 

Kupiov “Incod Xpiorov. 

2 Thess. ii 16 6 dyamnoas nuas kal Sods mapdxAnow aiwviay Kal Aida 
ayabiy év xapitt, mapaxadéca, vpav tas kapdias. By grace ‘the consola- 
tion of Israel’ is widened to the consoling of the Gentiles. The thought 
is: For us too it is through grace, which has extended it (and may 
you realise it!) to you as well. 

1 Cor. i 4 émt tH xapere Tov Oeod rH Sobcion piv ev XpioT@ “Incod. 
You have been called into fellowship, 2. 9. 

2 Cor. vi I mapaxadovpey pr) eis Kevdv THY xdpv Tod Oeod SéEarbat wpas. 

2 Cor. viii 1 yvwpifopev dé dpiv, adeAgoi, thy xdpw Tov Beod rhv dedo- 
pévnv év rats éxxAnoias tijs Maxedovias. The contribution to the Jewish 


EPHES.” 15 


226 


The ad- 
mission 
of the 
Gentiles 
dominates 
his use of 
the word. 


This is in 
harmony 
with the 


latter part 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Christians was a signal witness to the fellowship into which the Gentiles 


had been brought by grace. It was a proof that grace was being con- 


tinually given to those who made this return of grace. St Paul plays 


on the senses of the word with great delight in this connexion: v. 4 ry 
xapw Kal thy Kowawviay ths Siaxovias ris eis tovs ayious: v. 6 émuredéoy eis 


vpas Kal THY xapw ravrnv: ©. 7 Wwa Kal é€v TavTy TH xapiTL TepiocednTe: 

0. 9 ywookete yap THY xdpw Tov Kupiov judy "Inoot [Xpicrod]: v. 19 ev 
Th xapire tav’ty tH Staxovoupévy vd’ jpadv: ix. 8 duvaret 5€ 6 Beds mwacay 
xapw mepiccedoa eis was: 0. 14 émimobovyt@v vas dia thy drepBadr-— 


Aoveay yap Tod beod ef’ vyiv. The play on words was a truly Greek 
one: comp. Soph. A jaz 522 xapis xapw yap éotiy 7 Tixtovo’ dei. 

Gal. i 6 perariOerOe dad Tov Kadécavros tyas év xapite. Xptorod eis 
€repov evayyéAuor. 


Gal. v 4 xarnpyjOnre dro Xpiorod otrives év vop@ Sixaodabe, THs xdpiros — 
eeréoare. You have separated yourselves from that which was your 


one ground of hope. 


Col. 1 6 dq’ Hs syépas yeovoare Kal éméyvote thy xdpiv Tov Oeod év 


ddnOecia. This is again in connexion with the declaration of the uni- 
versal scope and fruitfulness of the Gospel. 
See also Eph. ii 5—9, and the exposition. 


A review of these passages makes it impossible to doubt that St Paul’s 
use of yapis is dominated by the thought of the admission of the Gentiles 
to the privileges which had been peculiar to Israel. Grace was given to 


the Gentiles through his ministry: grace was given to him for his ministry 
to them. The flexibility of the word enables him to use it in this twofold 
manner. The Divine favour had included the Gentiles in the circle of 
privilege: the Divine favour had commissioned him to be its herald for 
the proclamation of that inclusion. 


This being so, we recognise the fitness with which St Luke, the com- — 


panion of St Paul and the historian of his mission, uses the new name 


with peculiar reference to the proclamation and the reception of the ~ 


oftheActs. Universal Gospel among the Gentiles. 


' Later 
history of 
the word. 


Grace 
versus 
Freewill. 


Variously 


explained, 


It is unnecessary to follow the history of the word into the Pastoral — 


Epistles, where it is somewhat more widely used (comp, 2 Tim. ii 1, Tit. iii 7), 
though its specially Pauline usage may be illustrated by Tit. ii 11; or 


into the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the reference is quite general; 


or into 1 Peter, which adopts so much of the phraseology of St Paul’s 
epistles. As the first great controversy of Christianity passed out of 


ss 


pti OS 


——— 





——- 


sight, terminology which had been framed with peculiar reference to it — 
became widened and generalised ; and the word ‘grace’ in particular lost — 
its early association, while it remained in the new Christian vocabulary — 


and was destined, more especially in its Latin equivalent gratia, to be the 
watchword of a very different and scarcely less tremendous struggle. 


2. XAPITOYN. 


2. Closely connected with St Paul’s use of ydps is his incidental use 
on one occasion only of the word yapiroty (Eph. i 6). Its meaning both 
there and in Luke i 28, the only other occurrence of the word in the New 
Testament, has been variously explained. 





ON XAPIZ AND XAPITOYN. 227 
The verb xapirovy properly signifies ‘to endue with yapis’: and its Its mean- 
meaning accordingly varies with the meaning of xdpis. Thus from ydprs Ng Varies 
in the sense of ‘gracefulness of form’ (compare Hom. Od. ii 12 deomecinv iL oe 
o dpa ro ye xapw xaréxyevev ’AOnyn), we have the meaning ‘to endue oe mt 
with beauty’: Niceph. Progymn. ii 2 (ed. Walz. I 429) Muppay dvots pév usages: 
€xapitwcey els popdnv: comp. Ecclus. ix 8, in the form in which it is ‘to endue 
quoted by Clem. Alex. Paed. iii 11 83 dmoorpewov Sé tov dpOadpdv amo With 
yuvatkds Kexapiropévns (LXX. eduopdov). Again, from the sense of ‘gra- beauty,’ 
ciousness of manner’ we have the meaning ‘to endue with graciousness’ : 0 ‘With 
Kcclus. xviii 17, ‘Lo, is not a word better than a gift? And both are See a 
with a gracious man (mapa dvdpt Kexapiropév): a fool will upbraid 
ungraciously (dyapiorws)’. 
The above are Greek usages. A Hebraistic use, of ‘being caused to Hebraistis 
find favour’ in the eyes of men, is seen in Ps.-Aristeas Hp. ad Philocr. ¥5* 
(ed. Hody, Oxf. 1705, p. xxv; Swete’s Introd. to LXX p. 5581. 4 ff): in 
answer to the question, How one may despise enemies—’Hoxnkds rpos 
mavras avOpwrovs evvoiay Kal KaTepyacdpevos didias, Adyor ovbévos ay exas- 
To 6€ KeyapirdoGa mpos mavras avOpwmovs, kat Kadov Sepov eiAnhévar twapa 
Geov Todt’ éore Kparicrov'. 
In Luke i 28 the salutation Xaipe, xeyapirmpévn, 6 KUpios pera ood St Luke: 
gives rise to the unuttered inquiry woramés ein 6 domacpuos otros; and the 
angel proceeds: M1 dood, Mapua, edpes yap xapw mapa ro Oe@ (comp. 
Gen. vi 8). Thus xeyapiropévy is explained in an Old Testament sense as 82 O. T. 
} edpotca xdpy mapa 7 Oe: and the meaning of yaprody accordingly is cdivinol 
‘to endue with grace’ in the sense of the Divine favour?» This was Prpaces 
doubtless the meaning intended to be conveyed by the Latin rendering 
gratia plena, though it has proved as a matter of history to be somewhat 
ambiguous’. Similarly the Peshito has has Unfortunately 
the Old Syriac (sin and cu) fails us at this point. Aphrahat (Wright 180, 2) 
and Ephraim Comm. in Diatess. (Moes. 49) both omit the word in question, 
and read ‘ Peace to thee, blessed among women ’”*. 


1 A few further examples of xapcrobv 
may here be noted: 

In Test. xii Patriarch. Joseph 1, we 
have év dodevela nunv kat 6 tyoros 
émeckéwars pe év pudraxy Hunv kal 6 
cwrhp éxapirwoé we. This is of course 
an allusion to Matt. xxv 36, and éxapl- 
twoe is probably borrowed directly 
from Eph. i 6; the word being used 
simply in the sense of ‘bestowed grace 
upon me’: it is paralleled in the con- 
text by aydrnce, éptdate, avipyaye, 
Hrevdepwce, eBonOnce, di€Opee, mape- 
kddece, Sduvce, ouvnydpyce, Eepptoaro, 
Bywoe, as well as by erecxéyaro. 

Hermas Sim. ix 24 3 6 odv xuptos 
lidw tiv amdéryTa abtav Kal waicay 
ynmibrnra, émrAHOvvev avrovs év Tots 
kéros TY xeipav avTav, kal éxapirw- 
cev avrovs &v mdon .mpdia adrav. 


The Latin Version (practically the 
same in both its forms) has: ‘dedit 
eis in omni opere gratiam’. 

Epiphanius (Haer, lxix 22): 6 6é 
Mwuofs cuvése. éx Oeotd KexapiTw- 
bévos hpwta o¥ Tavra, adda, Kal 7d Ere 
GVWTEpOV, K.T-d- 

2 Jn the Apocalypse of the Virgin 
(James Apocr. Anecd. 1, 115 ff.) the 
Blessed Virgin is constantly spoken of 
and even addressed as 7 Kexapirwuévy. 

3 Ambiguity almost necessarily arose 
when gratia came to have as its pre- 
dominant meaning a spiritual power 
of help towards right living. 

4 Not unconnected with this may 
be the confused reading of the Latin 
of Codex Bezae: ‘habe benedicta dms 
tecum | benedicta tu inter mulieres.’ 


I5—2 


228 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


St Paul In interpreting St Paul’s meaning in Eph. i 6, eis ¢rawov ddkns rhs 
wee Xaptros avrod Hs exapirwcey nuas ev TH Hyarnyéve, it is important to bear 


own word 12 mind that he is emphasising his own word yapis. And we must compare 
xd pts: certain other places in which a substantive is followed by its cognate verb: 
Eph. i 19 xara ri évépyecav...nv evnpynxev (where he is thus led to a some- 
what unusual use of évepyeiv: see the detached note on that word): ii 4 
dua tiv woAAnv ayarnv avrod jy Wydmnoev Tuas: iv I Ths KAjoews Fs 
éxAnOnre: 2 Cor. i 4 dia ris mapakAnocws fs mapaxaXovpeba avroi. The 
‘endued sense appears to be, ‘ His grace whereby He hath endued us with grace’. 
us with This is a more emphatic way of saying, ‘ His grace which He hath bestowed 


grace’. on us’: it does not differ materially from the subsequent phrase of 2. 8, 
‘His grace which He hath made to abound toward us’. 

Versions. The Peshito version seems to recognise this meaning of the passage in 

Peshito. its rendering ais Aveta am, ‘which He poured on us’. The Latin 

Latin. version, however, renders: ‘gratiae suae in qua gratificauit nos’. The 


verb ‘gratifico’ appears to have been coined for this occasion. The com- 
ment of Pelagius on the verse gives the meaning which was probably 
present to the translator’s mind: ‘In qua gratia gratos fecit nos sibi 
A various in Christo’, The interpretation was perhaps the natural issue of the 
reading. corruption of #s into év 7, which is found in D,G, and later authorities 
and is probably a scribe’s grammatical emendation. The relative 7s is to 
be explained by attraction to the case of its antecedent, as in 2 Cor. i 4, 
quoted above. It is simplest to suppose that it stands for 7: there appears 
to be no warrant for a cognate accusative, nv éyapirwcev. 
Chryso- Chrysostom’s interpretation of éyapirwaev nas is marked by a deter- 
stom’s in- mination to compass every meaning of the word. In the first instance 
a he notes quite briefly (Field p. 110 F): ovkovy ef eis rotro éxapirwcey, eis 
érawov dSo€ns tis xaptros adrov, kal iva Sein thy yapw adrod, pévoperv év 
avr7. Here it would seem as though he took éyapirecev nas as simply 
meaning ‘endued us with grace’; in that grace, he urges, we ought 
plays to abide. But presently it occurs to him (111 B) to contrast éyapirecer 


onthe with éyapicaro. Thus he says: ovk eimev ‘fs éyapicaro’, GAN ‘ éxapiracer 
various Mutt Ht r : he X@p ’ xap 
senses of Hpas’s TovTegTw, ov povoy ayapTnuarwy annddagey dada kal €mrepdotovs 


xépsand émoinoe. He gives as an illustration the restoration of an aged and 

its deri- diseased beggar to youth, strength and beauty (the old Greek idea of 

vatives, dps): obras ééjoxnoey tar thy Wuyx7nv, Kat Kady Kal robewhy Kal éreé- 

pactoy éeroinger’...ovTws nuds émixapitas émoinge kal a’t@ moGewovs. 

He then quotes ‘The king shall desire thy beauty’ (Ps. xlv 12). He is 

then led off by the phrase xexapirwpéva pnyara to speak of the ‘gracious- 

ness of speech’ which marks the Christian: ovyt yapiev éxeivo rd madiov 

elvai caper, dmep Gv peta Ths tov awpatos @pas Kat moAAWY eyn Thy év 

Trois pyyact xaptv; Towovrol elow of morToi...ri yaptéotepoyv Tay pnud- 

tov &¢ dv drotraccopeba tH SiaBdrdq, SC dv cuvtacodueda TH xpioTe; 

but misses ris cuodoyias exeivns Tijs mpd Tod AouTpod, THs pera TO hovtpov; But 

= sea toa in all this he is wilfully going back from St Paul’s use of ydpis, and 

* introducing the sense of charm of form or of speech which belonged to 
xapcrovy in non-biblical writers. 








a i 


og 


i ee 





THE BELOVED. 


‘The Beloved’ as a Messianic title. 


1. In the Lxx 6 jyamnpevos occurs several times as a name of the chosen 
people, as personified in a single representative. In the Blessing of Moses 
it is used three times to translate Jeshuwrun (})W): Deut. xxxii 15 dmedd- 
KTLTEV O HyaTnpEévos, XXXili 5 Kal gorar ev TS Hyamnpévp Gpxwv, 26 ovK eorw 
Baomep 6 Oeds rod Hyannpévov. It again represents Jeshurun in Isa. xliv 2 
pn poBod, mais pov “laxwB, Kal 6 Hyamnpévos "IopanA ov é&ede~aunv: here 
*Iopand is an addition of the Lxx (in the Targum it also occurs in this place, 
but as a substitute for Jeshurun). 

It is also used to render 1'7': in the address to Benjamin (without the 
article) Deut, xxxiii 12 jyamnpévos brd Kupiov (min VT) xararknvecer 
merovlds : and in Isa. v 1 dow 8) 76 Hyamnuévm dopa tod dyarnrod [pov] 
(MN) 7G dumedGvi pov. dyumedav eyernOn TO tryarpév@ k.r.d. 

We may note also its occurrence in Bar. iii 37 "Iaxkd8 76 madi adrod 
kal “Iopand té Hyarnpér@ [vm] adrod: and in Dan, iii (35) da ’ABpaap 
Tov nyanrnpévov vo cov (comp. 2 Chron. xx 7 omépyare “ABpaap Te 
nyarnév@ cov). 

2. In the uxx we find two distinct meanings of 6 dyamyrds. 

(1) Like 6 jyamnnévos, it is sometimes used for °7! ‘beloved. Thus 
we find it in Ps. xliv (xlv) ¢t. @S7 dmép rod adyamyrod: in Ps. lix (1x) 5 
and Ps. evii (cviii) 6 émas av pucOdow of dyarnroi cov. 

In Isa. v 1, as we have already seen, where 6 7yamnpevos represents 17), 
6 dyarnrés is used for 717, in order to make a distinction?. 

(2) But we also find 6 dyamnros used, according to a Greek idiom, for 
an only son. In the story of the sacrifice of Isaac it occurs three times 
where the Hebrew has 7'f) ‘only’: Gen. xxii 2 rov viov cov rov ayarn- 
rov: comp. vv. 12, 16. Of Jephthah’s daughter we read in Judg. xi 34 
HP XT PI: for this the A text has xat airy povoyerys atr@ ayannry 
(to which many cursives add mepupuxrés avrd): B has kcal jv adr povo- 
vers (et haec unica ei Aug’), In Amos viii 10 and Jer. vi 26 mévdos 
dyarnrod is used as the equivalent of ‘a mourning for an only child’?: 


1 It also represents “p in Jer.  solitarium quam unigenitum sonat: si 


XXXVili 20 (xxxi 20) vulds dyamnrés 
’"E¢patu, and AMX in Zech. xiii 6 ds 
érriyny ev TQ olky TH ayarynre [A rod 
aryamrnrod] pov. 

2 Jerome, writing on Jer. vi 26, 
shews that he failed to recognise the 
idiom at this place: ‘ubi nos diximus 
luctum unigeniti fac tibi, pro unigenito 
in Hebraico scribitur IAID, quod magis 


enim esset dilectus siue amabilis, ut 
Lxx transtulerunt, IDID poneretur.’ 
Even Greeks at a late period seem to 
have found a difficulty in the use of 
dyarnrés in the uxx. Gregory of 
Nyssa (De Deit. F. et Sp. S. ili 568 
Migne) has, as @ citation of Gen, xxii 
2, Aapé pot, pnol, Tov vidy cov Tov dya- 
anrév, Tov povoyer}. Dr Hort points 


229 


1. Usein 
the Greek 


6 Hyarn- 
Bévos. 


2. Of 6 
ayarnrés. 
‘Beloved’. 


‘Only’. 


230 


. Use in 
RL 
‘O dya- 
wnrds in 
the Gos- 
pels. 


Tts mean- 


Not an 
epithet, 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


comp. Zech. xii 10 xéyrovrac én’ avrov Kxometov os em’ dyamnTro [-dy | 


AQ]* 


which has given occasion for this investigation. 


‘O dyamprés is used, both directly and indirectly, of our Lord in the — 


Gospels. 
(1) At the Baptism: 
Mark iti Sv ef 6 vids pov 6 dyamnrés, év cot evddxnoa. 
Matt. iii 17 Odrés eoriy 6 vids pou 6 dyarnrés, év & evdoxnca. 


Luke iii 22 as in St Mark, but with a notable ‘Western’ © 


variant? 
(2) At the Transfiguration: 
Mark ix 7 Odrdés éotw 6 vids pou 6 dyannros. 
Matt. xvii 5 Otrds dorw 6 vids pou 6 ayamntos, év d eddd«yca. 
Luke ix 35 Odrds éorw 6 vids pou 6 éxdedeypévos®. 
Comp. 2 Pet.i17 ‘O vids pov 6 dyamnris obrés éorw. 
(3) Indirectly, in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. 
Mark xii 6 éru éva efyev, vidv dyarnrov. 
Luke xx 13 méubo rov vidv pou Tov dyamnrév. 
St Matthew has no parallel to this clause. 

If the third of these examples stood alone, it would be natural to 
interpret it in accordance with the Greek idiom referred to above: and 
a close parallel might be found in Tobit iii 10 (& text), wia cor imjpxev 
Ovyarnp dyarnry. But it is difficult to separate its interpretation from 
that of 6 vids pov 6 ayannros, which is twice applied directly to our Lord. 
Of this three renderings are possible: 

(1) ‘Thou art My only Son’, 
(2) ‘Thou art My beloved Son’, 
(3) ‘Thou art My Son, the beloved’. 


The first of these renderings is vigorously championed by Daniel Heinsius, 
Exercitt. ad N. T. p. 94 (ed. Cantabr. 1640) on Mark i11. The second is 
familiar to us in our English Bible, and in St Mark at least it suggests 


3. In the New Testament we find 6 7yarnpévos in Eph. i 6, the passage 








out (Two Dissert. p. 49 n.) that from 
his comment we can see that he found 
the word povoyev7 in his text. 

The usage belongs to classical Greek 
from the time of Homer: see Od. ii 
365, iv 727, 817, and comp. Il. vi 
400 f. From prose writers we may 
cite Demosth. Midias p. 567 0d pip 
Nixiparés y’ otrws 6 To8 Nexiov 5 dya- 
mnros mais, and Xenoph. Cyrop. iv 
6 2 20awa...dpre yevecdoxovra Tov &piorov 
maida Tov dyarnrév. Aristotle shews 
an interesting extension of the usage, 
when in referring to the lex talionis 
he points out (Rhet. i 7) that the 
penalty of ‘an eye for an eye’ be- 
comes unfair when a man has lost 


one eye already; for then he is de- 
prived of his only organ of vision 
(dyarnrov yap adypyrar). 

1 We may note that in Prov. iv 3 
7m) is represented by d-yamdpevos. 
This word is used of Christ in Just. 
Dial. 93 dyyedov éxeivov...rov dyard- 
pevov bm’ av’rod rod kuplov kat Oeod: 
but there it stands for the more usual 
qyarnpevov. 

2 Tids wou ef ob, éyw onuepov yeyevvnkd 
oe (Dabe...): from Ps, ii 7. 

3 This is the reading of SBLZ syr“ 
arm sah boh a. It is undoubtedly to 
be preferred to that of ACD syr™pesh 
bevg, which have 6 dyamrnrés with St 
Mark. 





THE BELOVED. 231 
itself as the most obvious translation. Yet there is some reason for sup- 

posing that the third interpretation was that which presented itself to the 

minds both of St Matthew and of St Luke. 

St Matthew assimilates the utterances at the Baptism and the Trans- but a dis- 
figuration, writing in each case Odrés éorw 6 vids pov 6 dyarnrés, év o tinct title, 
evddxnoa. It is possible that the right punctuation of this sentence is i seb 
that which is suggested in the margin of the text of Westcott and Hort 
at Matt. iii 17: Otrés eotw 6 vids pov, 6 dyamnros év 6 eddoxnoa. For in 
Matt. xii 18 we find a remarkable change introduced in a quotation from 
Isa. xlii 1. The Hebrew and the uxx of this passage are as follows: 


‘STONY TD 3D 
we) ANY TR 


"Tako 0 traits pov, avTiAnWopat adrod: 

"Iopand 6 éxAexTos pov, mpoaedeEaro avrov 4 Wyn pov. 
But St Matthew has: 

"180d 6 mais pov oy npérica: 

6 dyamnrtos pov ov evdoxnoev 4 WuxT pov. 


There is no justification for rendering ‘2 otherwise than as ‘My 


Elect’!, It would seem therefore that St Matthew, in substituting ‘My 
Beloved,’ has been influenced by the twice repeated phrase of his Gospel 
0 ayarnros év @ evdoxnoa: and it follows that he regarded 6 dyamnros as 
a distinct title and not as an epithet of:6 vids pov. 

St Luke, by his substitution of 6 ékdeAeypevos for 6 ayamnros (ix 35), and to 
appears likewise to indicate that the latter was regarded as a title by itself, St Luke: 
for which the former was practically an equivalent. 

It is worthy of note that the Old Syriac version, in every instance and in the 
(except one) in which its testimony is preserved to us, renders 6 vids pov Old Syriac 
6 dyarnrés by yaya wits ‘My Son and My Beloved’: the conjunction Y°"S!0"- 
being inserted to make it clear that the titles are distinct”. 

It is further to be urged on behalf of this interpretation that the words The two 


Sb ef 6 vids pov of the Voice at the Baptism according to St Mark directly saps 
in Mark 1 


mentators. Thus in Harnack’s note = 


on Te wyyarnuévy in Ep. Barn. iii 6 


1 This passage, Isa. xlii 1, is ex- 
plicitly referred to the Messiah in the 


Targum, which renders it thus: NM 
SINT VND MPIIPN NW Ty 
991°1D 7192 ‘ Behold My servant Messiah ; 
I will uphold him: Mine elect, in whom 
My Word is well-pleased’. 

Curiously enough the Latin trans- 
lation of this which is given in the 
Polyglots of Le Jay and Walton has 
dilectus meus as the rendering of *YN. 
The mistake is perhaps due to a re- 
membrance of the Vulgate in Matt. 
xii 18. However it may have origin- 
ated, it is time that it was corrected: 
for it has misled a series of com- 


we read: ‘Nomen erat Messiae apud 
Iudaeos ex Ies. 42, 1 repetitum’, with 
references to Liicke, Hinl. in die Apok. 
edit. 11 p. 281 n. 2, and Langen, Das 
Judenthum in Palist. z. Z. Christi 
p. 162, 427. Hilgenfeld in his edition 
of Ep. Barn. carries on the tradition. 
2 So in Matt. iii 17 (sin cu), Luke 
iii 22 (sin: cu vacat), Matt. xvii 5 
(cu: sin vacat), Luke ix 35 (cu: sin 
"355 =6 éxNeNeypévos). For 
Mark i 11 we have no evidence. The 
one exception is Mark ix 7 (sin 
asaya “tee: Cu vacat), 


232 


4. Harly 
Christian 
writers. 
‘O tryaTn- 
pévos ab- 
solutely : 


similarly 
édyarnrés. 


Combina- 
tions with 
vais and 
vids. 


The Apos- 
tolic Con- 
stitutions. 


Summary. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


reproduce the language of Ps. ii 7, ‘The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art 
My Son’. If therefore we may suppose that ‘the Beloved’ and ‘the Elect’ 
were interchangeable titles in the religious phraseology of the time, we 
have in the Voice a combination of Ps. ii 7 with Isa. xlii 1, and ‘the Son’ 
who is set as King upon the holy hill of Sion is identified with ‘the Servant 
of Jehovah’; so that in the Divine intimation of the Messiahship the ideas 
of triumph and suffering are from the outset linked together. 

4. In the early Christian literature outside the New Testament we 
frequently find 6 ;}yamnpévos used absolutely of Christ; and also 6 #yamy- 
pévos sais, & combination which recalls Isa. xliv 2. The former occurs 
thrice in the Epistle of Barnabas: iii 6 6 Aaos ov jroipacey &v tH HyaTr- 
pévp avrov, iv 3 6 Seomdrns cuvrérunkey Tots Katpovs Kat Tas nuépas, iva 
TAaXvvn O Hyamnpevos avTod kal émt Thy KAnpovopiay En, iv 8 cuvetpiByn avrav 
9 StaOjKn, va 4 Tov Hyamnpévov “Incod évearacdpayicOn cis THY Kapdiay 
jpov. See also Ignat. Smyrn. imscr. éxxAnoia beod marpds Kat Tod Hyamn- 
pévov “Incot Xpiorov: Acta Theclae 1 wavta ra Adyia Tov kupiov...kal THs 
yevrnoews Kal THS dvacTdcews TOU Hyamnpevov eyAUKawev avrovs, Kal Ta 


peyarela Tod xpiorod K.7.A1: Clem. Paedag. i 6 25 avrixa yoo Bamrifopeva 


T@ Kupio am ovpavdy éemnynoey hav) paptus Ayamnpévou: Yids pov ef od 
dyamnros, ¢y® onpepov yeyévunkd oe. 

‘O dyarnros is used throughout the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah, as 
though it were a recognised appellation of the Messiah: and although it 
is there due to a Christian hand, it not improbably represents a traditional 
Jewish usage, 

We find the combination 6 fyarnpévos mais in Clem. Rom. lix 2, 3: and 
6 a@yannris mais in Ep. ad Diogn. 8, and, as a liturgical formula, in Mart. 
Polyc. 14, Acta Theclae 24. In Herm. Sim. ix 12 5 we have rod viod 
avTov Tod yyamnpéevov vm avrod: comp. Sim. v 2 6 roy vidy adrod Tov 
ayamnrov. 

A number of references to nyamnpuévos and dyaryrds in the Apostolic 
Constitutions are brought together by Harnack in his note on Zp. Barn. 
iii 6. Specially to be observed are v 19 (Lag. p. 152, L 14) rore dWovra 
Tov ayanntov Tov Oeod, ov é€exévrnoay, Which shews that the dyamyrds of 
Zech. xii 10 was interpreted of Christ: and v 20 (Lag. p. 153, 1. 24), where 
the title of Ps. xliv (xlv) g87 vmép rod dyamnrod is similarly explained 
(comp. Jerome Commentarioli in Pss., Anecd. Mareds. iii pt. 1, and 
Corderius Catena in Pss. ad loc.). 


The case then for regarding ‘the Beloved’ as a Messianic title in use 
among the Jews in New Testament times may be stated thus. 


1. ‘The Beloved’ (6 ryarnpévos LXX) is used in the Old Testament 
as a title of Israel. It is easy to suppose that, just as the titles ‘the 
Servant’ and ‘the Elect’ were transferred from Israel to the Messiah as 
Israel’s representative, so also the title ‘the Beloved’ would become a title 
of the Messiah. 


1 In Iren. i ro 1 (Mass.) we read: kal contain a reference to Eph. i ro 
Thy &oapxov els robs obpavods dvddnyw dvaxeparaicacba Ta maya, it is pro- 
Tod «Hyarnuevov Xpictod "Incov tod  bable that 6 jyarnuévos was directly 
xuplov “juav: but, as the next words suggested by Eph. i 6. 








—— ee oS Oe 





THE BELOVED. 


2. When the first and the third of our Gospels were written, ‘the 
Beloved’ and ‘the Elect’ were practically interchangeable terms. For in 
St Matthew we find o dyamnros pov in a citation of Isa. xlii 1, where the 
Hebrew has ")M2 and the txx renders literally 6 ékdexrés pov. And, 
conversely, St Luke substitutes 6 ékdeAeypévos for 6 ayamnres in the words 
spoken at the Transfiguration. 


3. Each of these substitutions in a different way favours the view that 
in St Mark’s twice repeated phrase 6 vids pov 6 dyamnros a separate title is 
given by 6 ayamnros, and not a mere epithet of vids. 

4. The Old Syriac Version emphasises the distinctness of the title by 
its rendering ‘ My Son and My Beloved’. 


5. In Eph.i 9 St Paul uses &y tr #yamnpév@ as the equivalent of év 
T® xptor@, in a context in which he is designedly making use of terms 
which had a special significance in Jewish phraseology. 

6. In early Christian literature o jyamnpévos is undoubtedly used as 
a title of our Lord; and it is difficult to suppose that its only source is this 
one passage in St Paul. 


7. If the Messianic portions of the Ascension of Isaiah cannot be 
regarded as pre-Christian, yet the persistent use in them of 6 dyamnros as 
the designation of Messiah suggests that the writer must have thought it 
consistent with verisimilitude in a work which affected to be a Jewish 
prophecy of Christ. 


233 


234 


History of 


the word. 


1. [ts deri- 
vation and 
classical 
use. 


Later use. 


2. Usageof 


the Greek 
9 ae 


Lxx of 
Daniel. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 


On the meaning of pwvoryptov in the New Testament. 


The history of the word pvornpior is curious and instructive. Starting 
with a technical signification in pagan religion, the word passes through 
a neutral phase in which the original metaphor has ceased to be felt, and 
in the end is adopted as a technical term of the Christian religion. The 
fact that it ends as it began in signifying a religious rite readily suggests 
that it was borrowed by Christianity directly from paganism. With certain 
limitations this may be true. That the Christian Sacraments of Baptism 
and the Eucharist were called puorjpia is probably due, in part at least, 
to the fact that the word was in common use for rites to which these 
Sacraments seemed to present some parallels. But, if so, it is certain 
that the borrowing process was considerably facilitated by the use of 
pvotnpiov Which is found in the New Testament; and that use, as we 
shall see, has no direct connexion with the original technical sense of 
the word. 


1. We find in the classical Greek writers a group of words—yvéa, 
pvotns, pvotnpiov—all of which are technical terms: ‘to initiate’, ‘one 
who is initiated’, ‘that into which he is initiated’. Of the derivation of 
pvew nothing certain can be said. It has often been stated that the root 
is to be found in pvw. But pvocas means ‘with the eyes shut’; and though 
the word is sometimes used by transference also of shutting the mouth, 
it is always necessary that the word ‘mouth’ should be expressly added 
in order to give this meaning. We cannot be certain therefore—though 
in itself it is not improbable—that the first meaning of the word is one 
of secrecy. We must be content to say that in usage pvotnpiov signifies 
a religious rite which it is profanity to reveal. 

In later Greek the word was used metaphorically of that which may 
not be revealed, a secret of any kind. Thus we have a line of Menander 
(incert. 168), prornpioy cov pH xateimns To id: ‘tell not thy secret to 
a friend’. 

2. The word is not used by the Lxx in translating any Hebrew word of 
the canonical books of the Old Testament. But in the Greek of Dan. ii, 
where the original is Aramaic, it is used eight times? to render N81, a word 
borrowed from Persian and found in Syriac as <i=@4. It is here used 
in reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and its interpretation by Daniel: 


1 In Plato Theaet. 156athe wordhas (9), a passage which has fallen out of 
not lost its original meaning atall,as the uxx by homoeoteleuton, but is pre- 
is shewn by dudnros in the context. served in Theodotion’s version. 

2 We may add to these Dan. iv 6 








a 





THE MEANING OF MYSTHPION. 235 


the ‘mystery’ was revealed to Daniel by the God who alone reveals 
‘mysteries’. The word ‘secret’ seems fully to represent the meaning. 
In the remaining books of the Greek Old Testament we have the O. T. 


following examples of the use of the word!: = Doty: 
Tobit xii 7 pvorjpiov Bacréws Kaddv kpia, ra dé Epya Tod beod aks 


dvaxadirrevy évdoéws (repeated in v. 11). 

Judith ii 2 ero per’ adraéy rd pvorypior tris Bovdjs adrod (when 
Nebuchadnezzar summons his servants and chief men). 

2 Mace. xiii 21 mpoonyyeer 5€ Ta pvornpra (of Rhodocus, who ‘ dis- 
closed the secrets’ to the enemy). 

Wisd. ii 22 kat ovK eyvwoay pvotipia Geod, ode picbdy AAmoav 
do.dtnros (of those who put the righteous to torture and death: 
‘their malice blinded them’). 

Wisd. vi 22 ri dé éorw codia Kal mas eyévero amayyedd, 

kai ovk dmokpiwo vpiv pvotipia. 

Wisd. xiv 15 puornpia cal rederds (of heathen mysteries: comp. 
pvotas Oidoov in xii 5). 

Wisd. xiv 23 7 yap texvoddvous rederas 7) kpvqua pvornpra (again of 
heathen mysteries). 

Ecclus. iii 18 mpdeow droxadirre: ra pvotnpia adrov [N@: not in 
X*¥A BC]. 

Ecclus. xxii 22 pvornpiov droxadiwews Kai mAnyfs Sodlas (of the 
things which break friendship). 

Keclus. xxvii 16 6 dmoxadi’mroy pvothpia am@decey rior (and 
similarly with the same verb in 2. 17, 21). 


In the other Greek translators of the Old Testament we have occa- Other 
sional examples of the use of the word. aki 
Job xv 8 ‘Hast thou heard the secret of God?’ So A.V.: Heb. Siar a 
DAN. 
R.V. ‘Hast thou heard the secret counsel of God?’ marg. Or, 
‘Dost thou hearken in the council ?’ 
LXX 7) cuvraypa Kupiov akjxoas; Symm. Theod. puornpsoy. 
Ps. xxiv (xxv) 14 LXX xparaiwpa Kiptos trav hoBoupévev adrov. 
Theod. Quint. pvarnpioy. 
Prov. xi 13 ‘a talebearer revealeth secrets’; Lxx dyjp diyAwacos 
drroxadirrres Bovdds ev cvvedpio. Symm. pvornproy. 
Prov. xx 19 (not in Lxx): the same words. Theod. puornprov. 
Isa. xxiv 16 bis (not in LXx): TO puornpiov pov eyo bis, A.V. ‘My 
leanness! my leanness!’ 
We see from these examples (1) that the word pvotjpiov was the natural The word 
word to use in speaking of any secret, whether of the secret plan of a cam- is used of 
° : ‘ . 2 any secret, 
paign or of a secret between a man and his friend. It is but sparingly 
used of a Divine secret: it may be that the earlier translators of the Old and found 
Testament purposely avoided the word on account of its heathen associa- with dacbs 
tions. We see moreover (2) that its natural counterpart is found in words xadirrevv. 


1 Of cognate words we may note: xJUoris yap éoTw Tis ToD Oeod émiorihuns, 
pvorikGs = ‘secretly,’ 3 Macc. iii 10: ‘she is privy to the mysteries of the 
pborts, of Wisdom, in Wisd. viii 4 knowledge of God’. 


4- The 
Gospels 
and the 
Apoca- 
lypse. 


Pauline 
Epistles. 
‘The mys- 
tery of 
iniquity ’, 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


like drroxaddrrew and droxadvWis, words which are equally applicable to all 
senses of pvornpiov. 

3. An important link between the usage of the Greek Old Testament 
and the usage of the New Testament is found in the later Jewish Apo- 
cryphal literature. Thus, we may note the following examples from the 
Book of Enoch : 

viii 3 (apud Syncell.) of Azazel and his companions: mdvres otrot 
qpEavro dvaxadvrrew Ta pvoTHpia Tals yuvagiv avrar. 

ix 6 (Gizeh fragm.) éd7dkwcev ra pvotipia Tod aidvos ra ev TO 
ovpay@: 80 in x 7, xvi 3 ter, of the same matters+ 

4. Inthe New Testament, apart from the Pauline Epistles, the word is 
only found in one passage of the Synoptic Gospels (with its parallels) and 
four times in the Apocalypse. 

Mark iv 11 dpiv ro pvotnpioy Séd0ra Tis Bacidelas Tod Geod (Matt. Luke 
piv dé8ora yvdvar Ta pvotypia Tis Bacetas Tod Geod [Matt. rdv ovpavady)). 

‘The secret’ of the kingdom was revealed to the disciples, while the 
multitudes heard only the parables which contained but at the same time 
concealed it. 

Apoc. i 20 76 puvotnpioy tay Extra dotépay ods eides... 

In this place the word pvoryjpiov follows immediately after the words 
& pédAre yiverOa pera tadra. These words and pvorypror itself are printed 
in small uncials in the text of Westcott and Hort, with a reference to 
Dan. ii 29. Whether a direct allusion to the Book of Daniel was intended 
by the writer may be doubted. The sense of pvor7jpiov in Dan. ii appears 
to be quite general; whereas here we seem to have an instance of the 
use of the word in a somewhat special sense, as either the meaning 
underlying an external symbol, or even the symbol itself. See below on 
Apoc. xvii 5, 7. 

Apoc. x 7 kal éerehéo6n TO MYCTHPION TOY GEO, ws evnyyéAicey TOYC 
€ayTOY AoYAOye TOYC TrpopsHTac. 

With this we must compare Amos iii 7 (Lxx) éay pn daoxadiyn madeiay 
mpos Tovs SovAous avrod Tovs mpodpyras (ITD mba ON ‘3). Here we find that 
pvotnptov, which apparently had been avoided by the Lxx, has now become 
the natural word for the Divine ‘secret’. 

Apoc, xvii 5, 7 kal émt To pérwmoy avris bvoya yeypaypevoy, pvotnpiov, 
BABYAQN...€yd €pd cot rd pvotnpiov Tis yuvaikds Kai Tov Oypiov. The 
name Babylon is itself a pvornpiov, that is, a symbol containing a secret 
meaning. In the second place the pvoryjpioy is rather the meaning of the 
symbol, as in i 20. 

5. We now come to the Pauline Epistles. The earliest example we 
meet with is an isolated one. The word is used in describing the opera- 
tions of the Antichrist in 2 Thess. ii 7. The Man of Iniquity is to be 
revealed (droxakuP67, v. 3). At present however there is 75 xaréyov—eis 
TO drokadupOijvat avrov év TS avrod Kaip@: TO yap pvornpioy 7dn évepyetrat 

1 The Greek fragments of the Book  Aethiopie text, see Anrich Mysterien- 
of Enoch are reprinted in the last wesen, p. 144, notes: it occurs several 
volume of Dr Swete’s manual edition times in connexion with ‘the Tablets 


of the Septuagint (ed. 2, 1899). For of Heaven’. 
references to the word ‘mystery’ in the 








a ty i 





THE MEANING OF MYZTHPION. 237 


Tis dvopias: povov 6 karéxwv dpte eas ex pécov yévnra. Kal rére droKa- 
AuPOnoerar 6 Gvopos, «7d. 

Here there can be little doubt that the word pvorjpiov has been a secret to 

suggested as being the natural counterpart to the dmoxdAvys already be re- 
spoken of, The Man of Iniquity is the embodiment of the principle of Y°!¢4- 
iniquity in a personality. The restraint which at present hinders him 
from being ‘revealed’ is spoken of first as a principle of restraint (rd 
xaréxov), and then as a personal embodiment of that principle (6 karéxar). 
While the restraint is effectual, the dvoyia cannot be ‘revealed’ as 6 ayvo- 
pos. But already it is at work, and it will be ‘revealed’ later on: till it 
is ‘revealed’ it is a ‘secret’—r6 pvornpiov tis dvouias. There is perhaps 
an intentional parallel with the ‘secret’ of the Gospel, which waited to be 
revealed in its proper time’. 

In 1 Cor. ii 1 St Paul is reminding the Corinthians of the extreme ‘ The mys- 
simplicity of his first preaching to them: kdyd €A@dv mpds duas, ddeAdoi, tery of 
HAGov od Kal? vrrepoxnv Adyou 7 codias KatayyéAdAov dpiv rd pvothpiov? Tod idl 
Geod, od yap expia re eid€var ev vpiv ei pn Incovv Xpiordv Kal TovTov éorav- 
popévoy. Not with any superiority of ‘wisdom’ had he come to them; not 
as a publisher of the Divine secret: nay rather as knowing nothing save 
Jesus Christ, and Him as crucified (the message of the Cross being, as 
he had already said in i 18, folly to the Greeks). But, although for the 
moment he seems to disparage ‘wisdom’ and ‘mysteries’, he presently 
adds (ii 6): copiav S€ Aadodper ev Tots Tedeiors (‘the full-grown’, as opposed 
to ynmios of iii 1): and he continues in . 7: ddAa Aadodpev Oeod codiav 
éy pvoTnpie, THY amoKekpupperny, nv mpowpirev 6 Oeds mpd TaY aidvey eis 
dd£av nyov. This use of the word is the characteristically Pauline use. 

It denotes the secret Purpose of God in His dealings with man. This 
is par excellence the Mystery. 

In 1 Cor. iv 1 the Apostle describes himself and his fellow-workers as The plural 
dmnpéras Xpurrov kai oikovopovs pvotnpiov Oeod, ‘entrusted for the sake of MuoTnpta. 
others with a knowledge of the Divine secrets’. The word is twice again 
used in the plural: in 1 Cor. xiii 2 kay €y@ mpogdnreiay kal €id6 Ta pvoTHpia 
mwavra kal macayv THY yvaow, Where its connexion with prophecy is note- 
worthy: and in 1 Cor. xiv 2 mvevdpare dé Aadet pvoryjpca, where it is connected 
with speaking in a tongue which no one understands, in contrast with 
such prophecy as is intelligible to the Church. 


1 There is a merely verbal parallel 
to rd pvorhpiov THs avoulas in the de- 
scription which Josephus (B. J. i 24 1) 
gives of Antipater. In contrast with 
others who uttered their thoughts 
freely, and were accused by him for 
their unguarded utterances, the taci- 
turnity and secrecy of Antipater are 
emphasised: rév ’Avrurdrpou Blov ovK 
dv hpaprév tis elrav Kaklas pvoTHpioy. 
His life was a villainous secret. 

2 It is to be noted that here there is 
a variation of reading: pvornpov is 
read by S*AC, some cursives, the 


Syriac Peshito and the Bohairic. It 
has also some Latin support. On the 
other hand yapripioy is the reading of 
&°BD,G,LP, most cursives, the Latin 
Vulgate, the Sahidic, Armenian and 
Aethiopic; and it has the support of 
Chrysostom and some other patristic 
writers. It may have come in from a 
recollection of 7d uapripiov Tov xpiorod 
ini6. The substitution destroys the 
completeness of the contrast between 
v. 1 and v. 7, and gives altogether a 
weaker sense. 





238 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


‘A mys- One more example is found in the same epistle (1 Cor. xv 51), of the ~ 

tery’. change at the Second Coming: iSod pvorypioy vpiv Aéyo. This may © 
be compared with the use of the word in the latter part of the Book © 
of Enoch. 

‘This In Rom. xi 25 the problem of the unbelief of Israel, which accords 


mystery’. with ancient prophecy and in some strange way is bound up with ‘mercy’ 
to the Gentiles, is spoken of as a Divine secret: od yap OéAw dyas 
ayvociv, ddeddoi, To pvotipioy ToUTO,...0Tt THpwots amo pépovs tH “Iopanr 
yéeyovev, K.T.X. 

‘The mys- In Rom. xvi 25, 26 we have again the characteristically Pauline use 

tery’ par of the word: xara dmoxadvw pvornpiov xpovois alwvios cearynpuévon, 

excellence. gavepwbevros 5é viv, dia te ypahev mpodntikav kat émitayhy Tov aiwviov 
Oeot eis tmaxony miotews eis mavta ta ym yvwpicbévros. This is the 
secret of secrets, the eternal secret now at last revealed in the Christian 
Church. 

Epistle to This last passage shews that the use of the word which we find in the 

Colos- Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians is no new one. The Mystery 

cuaammeal par excellence has a special reference to the Gentiles, In fact it is nothing 
less than the inclusion of the Gentiles as well as the Jews in a common 
human hope in Christ. So in Col. i 26, 27 we read: 76 puvortnjpioy To 
dmokekpuppévov amo Tov aidvev Kal ard Tay yevedv,—viv dé éepavepdOn 
Tois dyios avrov, ois 7OeAnoev 6 Geds yrwpica Ti TO mAodTos THs ddEns 
Tov pvotnpiov Tovrov év Tois COverw, 0 é€oTw Xpiotds ev vyiv, 7 eAmis Tis 
doéns. ‘Christ in you Gentiles’—that is the great surprise. None could 
have foreseen or imagined it. It was God’s secret. He has disclosed 
it to us. | 

In Col. ii 2 the same thought is carried on in the words, eis émiyvoow 
Tod pvotnplov Tov Oeot, Xpiotod, ev @ cioly wavres of Onoavpol tis coias 
kal yrooews amdxpupo. Here ‘the mystery of God’ is Christ as the 
treasury of the hidden wisdom which it is granted them to know. 

In Col. iv 3 the Apostle bids them pray that he may have opportunity 
Aadfjcat TO pvaoTnpiov Tod xpiotod, b¢ 6 Kal Sédeua, Wa Havepwow ato ws 
det pe AaARoa. 

Epistle to In the Epistle to the Ephesians the word occurs five times in this same 

Ephe- sense. We need but cite the passages here. 

PIaDe, 1. 9, 10 ywopicas mpiv ro pvornpiov TOU Gedaparos avrod, Kata ny evdoriav 
avTov iv mpoébero ev avT@ els oikovopiay Tod mAnpwpaTos THY Kaper, avaxeda- 
Aadoacba Ta Tdvra év TH XpLoTe. | 

iii 3—6 xara droxdduWuw éyvwpicbn pow TO prvotTnpiov, Kabas mpoeypaywa 
év Orly, mpds 5 ddvacOe dvaywdcKovtes vojoa THy cUveriv pou ev TO 
pvotnpio Tov xpioTod, 6 érépais yeveais ovK éyvwpiabn Tois viois Tay dv- 
Opdrwy és viv dmexadipOn Trois dylots arogrdAots avTov Kal mpodpyras év 
mvevpari, etvar Ta €Ovm ovvKANpovopa Kai Givowpa Kal Guypéroya THs emayye- 
Alas ev Xprote@ “Inood dia rod evayyeXiov. 

iii 9 Kat horica ris 7 olkovopia rod puvaotnpiov Tov amoKkexpuppévou ard 
Tov aidver év TO OG TH Ta TavTa KTicavTt. 

Vi 19 é€v wappyoia yropica To protnpiov Tod evayyeAiov vrép ov mpeE- 
oBevw év advcet. 


The Mystery, then, on which St Paul delights to dwell is the unification | 








ne, See a 





THE MEANING OF MYZTHPION. 239 


of humanity in the Christ, the new human hope, a hope for all men of all 
conditions, 2 hope not for men only but even for the universe, 

The word pvorjpioy occurs once more in the Epistle to the Ephesians, ‘ This 
and in a sense somewhat different from any which we have hitherto mystery’. 
considered. In Eph. v 32 we read: rd pvornpiov rodro péya éeoriv, éyd 
dé A€yw eis Xpicorov kai eis THY éxxAnciav. St Paul has cited the primaeval 
ordinance of Marriage, which closes with the enigmatic words xal gcovra 
oi dvo eis cdpxa piav. This saying is true, he seems to say, of earthly 
marriage; but it has a yet higher signification. The ancient ordinance 
is not merely a divinely constituted law of human life; it has a secret 
meaning. It isa pvorjpioy, and the pvornpioy is a mighty one. I declare 
it in reference to Christ and to the Church. I say no more of it now: 
but I bid you see to it that in common life each one of you is true to its 
first and plainest meaning, for the sake of the deeper meaning that lies 
hid in Christ. 

The sense in which the word here occurs may be illustrated from later A symbol, 

writers. Justin Martyr, for example, uses it somewhat in the same way °F its. 
when he speaks for instance (Trypho 44) of certain commands of the ™°4™8- 
Mosaic law as being given eis pvotnpioy tov Xpiorod: or, again, when he 
says of the Paschal lamb (Zrypho 40) rd pvotnpioy ody rod mpoBarov... 
TUmos Hv Tov Xpiorov. The Paschal rite contained a secret, not to be 
revealed till Christ came. Thus 76 pvornpiov is practically a symbol or 
a type, with stress laid upon the secrecy of its meaning until it comes to 
be fulfilled. 

We have still to consider two passages in the Pastoral Epistles. In ‘ The mys- 
1 Tim. iii 9 we read that a deacon is to hold 76 puornpiov tis micrews brY of the 
év xabapa ovveidnoe. It is not required of him, as of the bishop, that he —— 
should be 8:daxrixéds. Hence no secret lore can be meant: he is not the 
depositary of a secret tradition, as the words might have seemed to imply 
had they been spoken of the bishop. The phrase in its context can only 
refer to such elementary and fundamental knowledge as any servant of the 
Church must necessarily have. 

In the same chapter (v. 16) we read: kal opodroyoupévws péya eorly ro ‘The mys- 
tis evoeBelas pvorypiov: and the words are followed by what appears to pan Mai 
be a quotation from a Christian hymn. The epithet ‘great’, which is here 8 ' 
applied to ‘the mystery of godliness’, is the same as in Eph. v 32. It 
refers to the importance, not to the obscurity, of the mystery (see the note 
on that passage). But the use of this epithet is the only point of contact 
in the expression with the phraseology of St Paul: for the word evo¢Bea 
belongs to the peculiar vocabulary of these as compared with the other 
Pauline epistles. 

In both these instances the word pvorypiov appears to have a more A more 
general meaning than it has elsewhere in St Paul’s writings. The sum of general 
the Christian faith seems to be referred to under this term. It is perhaps ™°*™78- 
a natural expansion of what we have seen to be the characteristically 
Pauline use of the word, when the special thought of the inclusion of the 
Gentile world in the Purpose of God has ceased to be a novel and en- 
grossing truth. But whether such an expansion can be thought of as 


240 


Conclu- 
sion. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


directly due to the Apostle himself is a part of the difficult problom of 
the literary history of these epistles. 

We have found, then, no connexion between the New Testament use 
of the word ‘mystery’ and its popular religious signification as a sacred 
rite, which the initiated are pledged to preserve inviolably secret. Not 
until the word has passed into common parlance as ‘a secret’ of any kind 
does it find a place in biblical phraseology. The New Testament writers 
find the word in ordinary use in this colourless sense, and they start it 
upon a new career by appropriating it to the great truths of the Christian 
religion, which could not have become known to men except by Divine 
disclosure or revelation. A mystery in this sense is not a thing which 
must be kept secret. On the contrary, it is a secret which God wills to 
make known and has charged His Apostles to declare to those who have 
ears to hear it. 





———— 


a 


= mn 


ENEPIFEIN AND ITS COGNATES, 241 


On évepyeiv and its cognates. 


The meaning of évepyeiv and the cognate words in St Paul’s epistles has Limita- 

been so variously understood that it is desirable to attempt a somewhat tion of use 
more complete investigation of them than has hitherto been made. That i2 N-T: 
the sense which they bear in the New Testament is in some respects ier 
peculiar is in part due to a fact which it may be well to note at the 
outset : namely, that, wherever its ultimate source is directly expressed, 
the évépyeia is always attributed either to Divine or to Satanic agency. 
The prevailing thought is that of a Divine évépyea. In the two passages 
in which the evil spirit is spoken of as exerting évépyeva, there is evidence 
in the context of an intentional parallel with, or parody of, the methods of 
Divine action: see above in the note on Eph. ii 2, and Lightfoot’s notes 
on 2 Thess. ii 3—11 (Notes on Epp. pp. 111 ff.). This limitation lends 
a certain impressiveness to this whole series of words. Hven where évep- 
yetv is used of human action (Phil. ii 13) we are reminded that God 
Himself is 6 évepydv rd evepyeiv. And it is further in harmony with 
this conception that wherever in St Paul’s writings éevépyea is attri- 
buted to things, as opposed to persons, the form of the verb used is 
not évepyeiv but evepyeioda. 


1. At the base of all these words lies the adjective évepyés, which 1. The 
signifies ‘at work’: compare évapyos, ‘in office’, used in documents pre- #diectives 
ea ae : ‘ : eas . évepyds, 
served in inscriptions and papyri. It is found in Herod. viii 26, of certain évepyts. 
deserters who came into the Persian camp Biov re Sedpevor kal évepyol Gjassical 
BovAcpevor eivaz. The word has various shades of meaning, as ‘active’, writers. 
‘busy’, ‘effective’ (of troops), ‘under cultivation’ (of land), ‘productive’ 
(of capital); and in most cases the opposite condition is described by dpyés. 
The later form is évepyns (Aristotle has évepyéoraros). In Polybius both 
forms occur, and they are frequently interchanged in the manuscripts. 
The uxx has évepyos once, Ezek. xlvi 1, of the six ‘working days’; but Biblical 
never évepyys. In the New Testament, on the contrary, évepyjs is the Writers. 
only form’ We have it in 1 Cor. xvi 9, Ovpa ydp pou avémyey peyddn 
kat evepyys: that is, an ‘effective ’ opportunity of preaching: for the meta- 


1 This form of the word lent itself 
readily to confusion with évapyjs. In 
the two passages of St Paul in which 
it occurs the Latin rendering is evidens 
(or manifesta) which implies évap- 
yis in Greek mss. In Heb. iv 2 
évapyis is actually found in B; and 


EPHES.” 


Jerome, when he quotes the passage 
in commenting on Isa. Ixvi 18, 19, 
has evidens, though elsewhere he has 
eficax. For further examples of the 
confusion see the apparatus to my 
edition of the Philocalia of Origen, 


Pp. 140, 141, 144. 
16 


242 


2. The 
substan- 
tive 
évépyeia. 
Aristotle. 


Galen. 


Greek 
oO.T. 


St Paul. 


2 Thess. ii 
Q, II. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


phor of the ‘open door’ compare 2 Cor. ii 12, Col. iv 3. In Philem. 6, éras — 
1) Kowovia THs wioreds cou evepyis yévnra, it means ‘productive of due — 
result’, ‘effective’: and in Heb. iv 12, (dv yap 6 Adyos Tod Oeod Kal evepyis — 


kat To“w@Tepos Umép macay paxapay Sicropuor, it again seems to mean ‘ efiec- 
tive’; but perhaps the word was chosen with a special reference to (av: 


for évepyds and évepyeiv are used of activity as the characteristic sign of — 


life—‘ alive and active’. 


2. The substantive é¢vépyera is employed by Aristotle in a technical 
sense in his famous contrast between ‘potentially’ (Svvdyec) and ‘actually’ 


(evepyeia). We have it too in the Nicomachean Ethics in the definition of — 


To avOpemwwov. ayabov, which is declared to be Wuyis évépyeca kar’ dperny 
év Bio redeio (i 6 15, p. 1098, 16%); and in this connexion a contrast is 
drawn between évépyea and €é&is. 

It is interesting to compare with this the definition of the term in 
physiology as given by Galen, de natural. facultt. i 2, 4, 5. He distin- 
guishes carefully epyov ‘result’, évépyeca ‘action productive of épyov’, and 
dvvauis, ‘force productive of évépyera’. 

In the Greek Old Testament the word occurs only in Wisdom and 
in 2 and 3 Maccabees. It is used twice of the operations of nature, 
Wisd. vii 17, xiii 4; once in the phrase ovy drAav évepyeia, ‘not by force 
of arms’ (xviii 22); and again in the notable description of Wisdom as the 
€somtpov aknAidwroy Tis Tov Geov evepyeias (Vii 26). It is used in 2 Mace. iii 
29, 3 Mace. iv 21, v 12, 28, of a miraculous interposition of Divine power. 


The instances last quoted suggest that already the way was being — 


prepared for that limitation of the word to a superhuman activity which 
we noted at the outset as characterising its use in the New Testament. 
St Paul, who alone uses the word, has it five times expressly of the 
exercise of Divine power (Eph. i 19, iii 7; Phil. iii 21; Col. i 29, ii 12). 
In Eph. iv 16 it is used in the phrase xar’ évépyevav, without an express 
reference indeed to God, but of the building of the Body of the Christ; 
so that this can hardly be regarded as an exception. 

On the other hand it occurs twice of an evil activity. In the descrip- 
tion of the incarnation of iniquity, which is to parody the work of Christ 
and to claim Divine honours, we have the expression, ov éoriv 7 mapovola 
kar’ évépyeay Tod Sarava. Already the Apostle has said, ro yap puornpioy 
75 évepyeirat Tis dvopias: and lower down he adds, of those who are to 
be deceived by the signs and wonders of this false Christ (onpedous kat 
Tépacw wevdous), méumer adrois 6 Oeds evépyevay mAdyns eis TO moredoa 
avrovs TH Wevder. This ‘working of error’, which makes men believe the 


1 In Xenophon Memorab. i 4 4 we 
have {Ga éeuppovd re xal évepyd, in 
contrast with the eldwra ddpovd re kat 
dxlyynra of sculptors or painters. Com- 
pare also Athan. de incarn. 30 el yap 
5) vexpbs Tis yevduevos ovdév évepyeiy 
divarat K.T.r. 9 Ws, elrep ovK eorw 
évepyav [sc. 6 Xpicrés], vexpod yap tdidy 
éort Toro, a’rdés Tods évepyotvras Kal 
fGvras ris évepyelas maver, x.r.. In 


Wisd. xv 11 we read 

bre iyvénocey Tov mrdoavTa abrév, 

kal Tov éurvetcavta abt puxhv év- 

epyotcay 

‘Kal éugvojoarra mvetua Swrixdv. 
The passage which underlies this is, 
of course, Gen. ii 7 évedtoncer eis 7d 
apbcwmrov avirod mvony Swis, Kal éyévero 
6 dvOpwiros els puxiy fdoav. 











ENEPIFEIN AND ITS COGNATES. 243 


false pretender (who is ‘the lie’, as Christ is ‘the truth’), is itself a 
judgment of God. We may compare ‘the lying spirit’ sent forth from 
God to deceive Ahab, 1 Kings xxii 21—23. 


3. The verb evepyeiv, after the general analogy of denominatives in -ew, 3. The 
means primarily ‘to be at work’, ‘to work’ (intrans.), and is accordingly Verb ¢vep- 
the opposite of dpyeiv. So Aristotle freely employs the word in connexion }*/" 

; : : ping : x ntransi- 
with his special sense of évépyeca. Polybius, whose use of the word is for tive, 
the most part somewhat peculiar, has this first and most natural meaning 
in a passage in which he prophesies the filling up of inland seas: iv 40 4, 
pevovons ye 5 THs avrns tagews mept Tovs TOmous, Kal Tay airiwy Ths eyxXo- 
gews evepyovvTwy Kata TO cuvexés. We may compare also Philo, de leg. 
alleg. iii 28 (Mangey, p. 104) drav mapovea [sc. 9 xapa] dSpacrnpios évepy7. 

But indeed the usage is too common to need illustration. 

A further stage of meaning is used when the verb is followed by an Transi- 
accusative which defines the result of the activity. Then from the in- tive, 
transitive use of ‘to work’ we get a transitive use. There appears to be 
no example of this in Aristotle: but instances are cited from Diodorus 
Siculus and Plutarch, and it is common in later Greek. In Philo, de 
uit. contempl. (M. p. 478), the meaning is scarcely different from that of 
mparrew: & yap morres ev oradiots éxeivol...viKTwp €v oKdT@ peOvorTes... 
évepyovow: and this is often the case in other writers. So far as I am 
aware, the accusative always expresses ‘that which is worked’, and never 
‘that which is made to work’. That is to say, évepyety does not seem ever 
to mean ‘to render évepyov’, in the sense of ‘to bring into activity’. 

Thus, though Polybius uses again and again such expressions as évepyf Polybius. 
motovpevor tHv eodov (xi 23 2), and évepyerrépay amodaivover tHy vav- 
paxiay (xvi 14 5), he does not use evepyeiy as equivalent to evepyor 
mouetcba, In the one place where this might seem at first sight to be 
his meaning (xxvii I 12 évepyeiv éwéra&av Tois apxovou THY ovppaxiar) 
this interpretation cannot be accepted in view of the strong meaning 
(‘assiduous’, ‘energetic’, ‘ vigorous’) which évepyds (-7s) invariably has in 
this writer. We must therefore render the words, ‘to effect the alliance’. 


We come now to the Greek Old Testament. In the intransitive sense Greek 
évepyety is found in Num. viii 24 in B, as the substitute for a somewhat 0.T, 
troublesome phrase of the original, which AF attempt to represent by 
Aecroupyeiv Aevroupylay év épyos. It occurs again in Wisd, xv 11 (quoted 
already) and xvi 17 év rGé mdvra oBevvivrs Udatt mreiov evypyes TO Tip. 

The transitive sense is found in Isa. xli 4, ris évypynoe Kal €roince raita; 
in Prov. xxi 6 6 évepyav Onoavpicpara yhdoon Wevdei, and xxxi 12 évepyet 
yap t@ avdpi dyaéd. 

In the New Testament évepyeiv comes, apart from St Paul’s epistles, Gospels. 
only in Mark vi 14 (Matt. xiv 2) dud rodro évepyodow ai duvdpes €v avra, Intransi- 
where the connexion of the word with miraculous powers is to be noted. “VY 

In St Paul we find the intransitive use in three passages. The first St Paul. 
is Gal. ii 8, 6 yap évepyjoas Iérp@ eis drooroAny Tis mepiropis éempynoev range 
kal éuo els rd On, ‘He that wrought for Peter’, etc. The connexion of ~~ 
évepyeiv with miraculous interpositions, which we have already observed, 
and which will be further illustrated below, may justify us in interpreting 

16—z2 


244 


Transi- 
tive. 


4. ’Evep- 
yeto Oa. 


Passive, 
*to be 


wrought’, 


Polybius. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


this passage, in which St Paul is defending his apostolic position, in the 
light of 2 Cor. xii 11 f., oddév yap dorépnoa tév imepriavy droarddov, i 
kat ovdév eipe+ Ta pév onpeta Tov amoorodov KaTeipydcOn év vuiv ev macy 
vmopovp, onpuelois [re] Kat répacw Kai Suvdueorr. Compare also [Mark] 
XVi 20 Tov Kkupiov cuvepyodvros Kal Tov Adyov BeBatobvros dia Trav érako- 
Aovdovvrav onpeiwv, Acts xiv 3, xv 12, Heb. ii 4. In any case we must 
avoid the mistake of the Authorised Version, which renders ‘He that 
wrought effectually in Peter...the same was mighty in me’. We cannot 
attribute to St Paul the construction evepyeiy twvi in the sense of évep- 
yeiv & run, though it may have come in at a later period through a 
confusion with évepyd¢erOa, which is a compound verb?. In Eph, ii 2 
we have the intransitive use again in rod mvevparos tov viv évepyovvros 
év rois viois tis amevOias. In Phil. ii 13 we have rd Oédew kal ro évep- 
yet, where the word is exceptionally used of human activity, as we have 
already noted, and is introduced as a kind of echo of the preceding 6 
evepyov. 

The transitive sense occurs in the passage just cited, Phil. ii 13 6 
évepy@v...7d Oedew k.7.r.; also in Gal. ili 5 6 evepyadv duvdpes ev dpiv, and 
in a specially instructive passage, 1 Cor. xii 6—11, diatpéoes evepynudrev 
eigiv, kal 6 avros beds, 6 evepyav Ta mavta év macty...a\r@ dé evepynpara 
duvdpewv...rdvra S€ ratta évepyet TO Ev kal To atdTo mvedpa. Here again 
the reference is to miraculous powers. In Eph. i 11 we have xara mpo- 
Geow rod ra mavra évepyotvros Kata THv BovAny Tov OeAnpatos avrov, where 
we must render ‘who worketh all things’: for we are not justified in 
supposing that it can mean ‘who setteth all things in operation’: the 
thought of ‘moving the universe’, expressed in Heb. i 3 by dépav ra 
qavra TO pypate tis Suvdyews adrov, must not be introduced here. Simi- 
larly in Eph. i 19, xara tyv évépyevay Tov Kkpdrovs tis icxvos avrod ny 
évnpynkev ev TS xpioT@ éyeipas avrév «.r.A., we must render ‘according to 
the working...which He hath wrought’. If the original is more emphatic 
than such a rendering may seem to imply, this is due chiefly to St Paul’s 
general attribution of évepyeiv and évépyeca to Divine operation. 


4. We now come to the point of chief difficulty, the use and meaning 
Of évepycioOa. 

From the meaning of. évepyeiv c. accus., ‘to work, effect, do’, we 
readily get a passive use, evepyeicOa, ‘to be wrought, effected, done’, 
Thus Polybius uses it of a war ‘being waged’: in i 13 5 he says that, 
contemporaneously with certain wars between the Romans and the 
Carthaginians, mapa tots “EhAnow 6 Knrcoperckds xadovpevos évnpyeiro 
moAepos: comp. Joseph. Anti. xv 5 3. Again, in ix 12 3 he uses ray 
€v Kaip® évepyoupévwy as a Variant upon his previous phrase trav pera 
ddAov Kal ody Kaip@ mparrouévoy; and in ix 13 9 he lays stress on a 

1 In Athenag. Supplic. 10 we have’ is adequately explained as dativus 


an apparent, but perhaps only ap- commodi. A more doubtful looking 
parent, instance of suchaconstruction: instance is Clement. Hom. vii 11 xal 


kairo. kal at’rd 7d évepyoiv Tots éx- dia Todro duaprdvover vécous évepyeiv 
dwvodor mpodyntixas ayiov wvetua amrép- divarat. 


poay elvat payev Tov Oeov. The dative 





ENEPIrEIN AND ITS COGNATES. 


general’s choice of those 6’ dy kal pe dy evepynOnoera rd Kpibér, ‘his 
decision shall be executed’, ‘his plan shall be carried out’, This is the 
sense which the form bears in the only passage of the Greek Old Testament 
in which it occurs, 1 Esdr. ii 20 évepyetrat ta kata Tov vadv. 


245 


Although Aristotle does not use évepyeiy in a transitive sense, yet we Aristotle. 


find a few instances of the passive évepyeto@a in his works. 

Ilept huroy ii 7 (827, 33). The sun méyu moet (826, 37): but the 
moisture may be so great, dore pn memaiverOar: Tore 4 vyporns avrn, els 
qv ov éemmpynon méyns, «.7.d., Le. in which wéyis has not been wrought 
or effected by the sun. 

@voix. dxpodo. ii 3 (195, 28>). He has been classifying causes and 
effects (airva kal dy airia). Causes are either xara duvaywv or évepyotvra: 
they are duvduers in respect of duvard, and évepyovvra in respect of évep- 
yovpeva: of the last an instance is d8¢ 6 oikodopay TAHde TE oixodopovpera. 
Potential causes and possible results are contrasted with effective causes 
and effected results. 

Ilepi yuxis iii 2 (427, 7°). The text is uncertain; but there is a con- 
trast between duvaye. and r@ ecivat, followed by a further distinction: 
to 8 elva ov, ddda TO evepyeioOar Suuperor, ‘in the being carried into 
effect’ or ‘realised’. 

Ilept coop. 6 (400, 23). God is to the universe what law is to the 
state: 6 THs wodews vouos akivntos dv év Tals TOY xpopevav Wuyais mara 
oikovowel Ta KaTa THY Todureiav, In accordance with law one man goes to 
the Prytaneum to be feasted, another to the court to be tried, another to 
the prison to be put to death: yivovra: S€ cal SypoOowiar vopipor...dedv 
te Ovoia Kai npdwy Oepareia...drdrda b€ GAdows evepyovpeva KaTa play mpdo~ 
ra&iwv 4 vopuipov ééovciay. Here the word is used in no philosophic sense, 
but simply means ‘carried out’ or ‘done’} 


It is interesting to note that in Xenophon we have two examples ’Apyeiodu 
of the passive of dpyeiv. Cyrop. ii 3 2 ovdév yap avrois dpyeiras tov 12 Xeno- 


es phon. 


mparrecbat Seouévor, ‘they leave nothing undone’, ‘let nothing lie dpyov’. 
Hiero 9 9, if it be made clear that any one who finds a new way of 
enriching the state will be rewarded, ovdé atrn av 4 oéyus apyoiro: 
a few lines below we have this repeated in the form, woAAovs Gy xal rodto 
eLopunoesev Epyov moreiaOa TO oKoreiv te dyabdov. The use of apyeiv ‘to be 
idle’ (of persons) and dpyeioda ‘to be left idle’ (of powers) may prepare 
us for a corresponding use of évepyeiv ‘to be at work’ (of persons) and 
évepyeia bat ‘to be set at work’ (of powers). 


In the New Testament all the examples of évepyeicOa, with the ’Evepyei- 


notable exception of James v 16, belong to St Paul. The passages are ¢ 


the following : 

(x) 1 Thess. ii 13 f. Adyov Oeod, ds Kal evepyeirat ev dpiv rois muaredovow. 
Dpeis yap pounrat eyernOnTe.. +0. bre ra avra éemabere kal vets KT. 

(2) 2 Thess. ii 7 rd yap pvoripuov idy évepyeirac Tis dvopias: povoy 
6 kaTéxov Gpti, K.T.A. 

(3) 2 Cor. i 6 etre mapaxadotpeba, vrép Tis UpOV TapakAnoews Tis 
évepyounévns ev tmopovy tay avrdv mabnparwy ay Kal tpets 
Tac xX opev. 

1 This instance is not given in Bonitz’s index. 


Oat in 
St Paul. 


246 


Not the 
middle 
voice. 


The sense 
of the 
passive : 
not of 
things to 
be done, 
but of 
powers to 
be set in 
operation. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


(4) 2 Cor. iv 12 dere 6 Oavaros év jpiv evepyeira, 7 Sé Con ev vpiv. 

(5) Gal. v 6 adda miotts 80 ayamns évepyoupérn. 

(6) Rom. vii5 f. r& waOjpara ray duapriay Ta dia Tov vouou éevnpyeiro 
év trois perdcow judy els TO Kaprodhopjaa r@ Oavare: veri dé 
katnpynOnpev KT. 

(7) Col. i 29 eds 6 Kai Komid dywrCopevos Kara Thy évépyeray adrod Thy 
evepyouperny ev enol év Suvaper 

(8) Eph. iii 20 cara rhv Sivapwy riy evepyoupérny ev jyiv. 

In approaching the consideration of these passages we are met by the 
dictum, which has received the sanction of Lightfoot, that évepyetoOa is 
always middle, ‘never passive in St Paul’. It is difficult to reconcile this 
judgment with the observed fact that évepyeica: is never used by St Paul 
of persons, while évepyeiv is always so used. If the words be respectively 
passive and active, this distinction is perfectly natural: but there seems 
no reason why the middle should be specially applicable to things in 
contrast to persons*. Moreover, so far as I am aware, there is no trace 
of a middle in any other writer. The aorist where we find it is always 
evnpynOnv. The one passage of Polybius which appeared to offer an 
example to the contrary, ii 6 7 KaramAnf&w Kal PoBov évepynodpevor Trois 
Tas tapaXias oikovo., is now emended with certainty by the substitution 
of éevepyacdpevor, which at once restores the proper construction of the 
dative and gives back a well recognised idiom. 

If then we decide that in St Paul as elsewhere evepyeio a: is passive, we 
have to ask whether that sense of the passive of which we have already 
found examples, ‘to be carried out, effected, done’, will give a satisfactory 
sense in the passages before us. 

The very first of them refuses this interpretation. The Divine message 
of the Gospel (6 Adyos rod Geod) évepyeira éy Trois mictevovow. St Paul’s 
meaning here appears to be ‘is made operative’, ‘is made to produce its 
appropriate result’: another writer would probably have given us évepyei, 
‘is operative’; but St Paul prefers the passive, the agent implied being 
God 6 évepyév. The Gospel is not allowed to lie idle and unproductive : 
it is transmuted into action: the Thessalonians share the sufferings which 
are everywhere its characteristic accompaniment. 

Similarly in (3), the wapdkAnos is made effective only by fellowship in 
the sufferings of the Gospel: and the thought in (4) is closely allied. 

In (2), whereas the evil spirit may be said évepyeiv (Eph. ii 2), the 
pvaoTnpiov Tis dvopuias, the counterpart of the pvarnpiov rod xpicrod, is said 
evepyeio Oat, ‘to be set in operation’. 

In (5) the sense appears to be: ‘faith is made operative through love’, 
without which it fails of its action (dpyei)’. With a like interpretation (6) 
presents no special difficulty. 

In (7) and (8), especially when compared with Eph. i 19 cara ry évép- 


1 See his note on Gal. v 6. vyouuévn here as passive, though unlike 

2 Compare Greg. Naz. Or. 318 (i St Paul he thinks of a human agency: 
559 D) wal el évépyea, evepynOqoerac Strom. i 4 (p. 318) mds otk dudw dzro- 
Snrovéri, odK evepyhoet, Kal duod re Sexréor, evepydv Thy mlorw did Tis 
évepynOnvar mavoera. dyarns memompévo.; 

* Clement of Alexandria took évep- 





ENEPFEIN AND ITS COGNATES. 247 


yetav...qv éevyipynkey x.7.X., we again find the passive appropriately used. 
St Paul says 7 évépyea éevepyeira, not évepyei, because he regards God 
as o evepyor. 

It is to be observed that in actual meaning evepyeiv and évepyeioOa 
come nearly to the same thing. Only the passive serves to remind us that 
the operation is not self-originated. The powers ‘work’ indeed ; but they 
‘are made to work’. 

The passage in St James’s Epistle (v 16 wodd loyver dénors Sitxaiov James v 
évepyoupévn) is notoriously difficult. We must not hastily transfer to this 16. 
writer a usage which so far as we know is peculiar to St Paul. Yet it 
is at least possible that here too éevepyoupévn means ‘set in operation’ by 
Divine agency. 

In later times évepyeivy was used in the sense of ‘to inspire’, whether the Later use 
inspiration was Divine or Satanic. But this usage has no direct bearing for ‘in- 
on the meaning of the word in the New Testament. ee. 


248 


1. “Emcy- 
pooKew in 
classical 
authors. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 


On the meaning of érriyvects. 


1. The word ériyvecis is not found in Greek writers before the time 
of Alexander the Great. “Emyiwdoxew, however, is used occasionally by 
almost all writers. Thus in Homer, Od. xxiv 216 ff, when Odysseus 
proposes to reveal himself to his father, he says: 

avrap éy matpos Tmewpnoopat nuetépoto, 

ai ké p énvyven kal dpacoerat opOadpoiow, 
né Kev ayvoijoe ToAdy xpdvoy aydis éovra. 

If he discern me and read me with his eyes, 
Or know me not, so long I am away. 


Again, in Od. xviii 30f.,, the beggar Irus challenges Odysseus to fight 
him in the presence of the suitors: 
(acai vuv, iva mayres eriyvdwot kal olde 
papvapevovs: mas © ay od vewrépm avdpi paxoio; 
‘that these may know us, how we fight’: that they may discern which is 
the better man of the two. 
In Aesch. Ag. 1596 ff. it is used of Thyestes at the banquet: 
avtix adyvoia haBay 
éoOe. Bopay GBpwrov, ws pas, yéver. 
Kamer’ émvyvovs Epyov ov Kataicvov 
Gpo€er, k.1d. 
Here, as in Od. xxiv 216 ff., it is used in contrast with dyvova, ‘not recog- 
nising’, ‘not discerning’. 
In Soph. 47. 18 f. we have: 
kal viv éméyvas ev pw em avdpt dvopevet 
Baow xvkdodvr’, Alavrt rh caxerpdpg. 
‘And now thou hast discerned aright that I am hunting to and fro on 
the trail of a foeman’: so Jebb, who says in a note: “ééyvas with partic. 
(kuxdodrr’) of the act observed, as Xen. Cyr. 8. 1. 33 éméyvas & ay...ovdéva 
ore dpytCopevov...ovTe xalpovra”. 
Soph. £7. 1296 f. : 
ovta 8 des pntnp oe pi) meyvecerat 
padpd mpocere. 
‘And look that our mother read not thy secret in thy radiant face’: Jebb, 
with a note: “—syvdoera, ‘detect’: the dative is instrumental”. 
In Thucydides there are two distinct usages of the word. The first 
is the same as that which we have already noticed: e.g. i 132: mapamoin- 
oapuevos oppayioa, iva...ut émeyvd, Avec Tas emuorodds: i.e. that the receiver 


"i cihua Koll 

















THE MEANING OF ETTIFNOCIC. 249 


of the letter might not detect what he had done. The second corresponds 
with a special meaning of ywocxe, ‘to determine’ or ‘decide’ (i 70, ii 6s, 
iii 57): it does not directly concern us here. It is nearly synonymous with 
émexpivey. 

If now we inquire what is the force of the preposition, or in other The force 
words how does émywocxeww differ from ywooKew, we may note first of all of the pre- 
that the simple verb would have given the meaning, intelligibly if less P°°!4- 
precisely, in all the cases which we have cited. There is no indication 
that émyiwwcKew conveys the idea of a fuller, more perfect, more advanced 
knowledge. 

We find a large number of compounds in éi, in which the preposition It signifies 
does not in the least signify addition, but rather perhaps direction. It not ad- 
seems to fix the verb upon a definite object. Thus we have émaveiv, eis bhi 
emderkvivar, emi(nreiv, emikadeiv, emiknpvocey, emiKpareiy, éemikpumrelv, emt- ° 
péreo Oat, eripupynoKkeo Oat, emivoeiy (excogitare), emixopnyetv. So also émixowos 
means ‘common to’ and is followed by a genitive or dative of the object. 
In these cases we cannot say that the compound verb is stronger than the 
simple verb. The preposition is not intensive, but directive (if the word 
may be allowed). It prepares us to expect the limitation of the verb to 
a particular object. 

Thus yweoxew means ‘to know’ in the fullest sense that can be given A limita- 
to the word ‘knowledge’: émvywodcxew directs attention to some particular tion sug- 
point in regard to which ‘knowledge’ is affirmed. So that to perceive ato 
a particular thing, or to perceive who a particular person is, may fitly be 
expressed by émvywooxew. There is no such limitation about the word 
ywocoxewv, though of course it may be so limited by its context. 


2. We may now consider the usage of the txx. In Hebrew the2. The 


ordinary word for ‘to know’ is ¥3°, But in the earlier books of the O.T. igi! 
“Di is used in the sense of discerning or recognising. Thus it is the word ; 


employed when Jacob’s sons say to him: ‘now now whether it be thy son’s 
coat or no. And he knev it, and said, It is my son’s coat’ (Gen. xxxvii 32 f.). 
So again in Gen. xlii 8, ‘And Joseph Anew his brethren, but they knew 
not him’. Here, as we might expect, the word is rendered by émvypvo- 
cxey. Throughout the historical books érrywaécxew generally represents 
737], though occasionally it is a rendering of Y7°, In the Prophets, how- 
ever, V3i0 is very rare, and émvywdoxew is used forty-five times to render 
y7, To shew to what an extent the two words were regarded as identical 


in meaning, we may note that in Ezekiel the phrase ‘they (ye) shall ‘now 
that I am the Lord’ is rendered about thirty-five times by yrdoorra (yva- 
ceobe), and about twenty-five times by emvyywoovra (emeyrdceOe)'. 
In the later books of the Lxx we come across the word émiyvwois, of The noun. 
which hitherto we have said nothing. It occurs four times in books of 


1 For the distribution of the render- the simple verb alone occurs (save as 
ings between the two translators of a var. lect. of A) in chapters xxviii to 
Ezekiel see Mr Thackeray’s article in xxxix. 

Journ. of Theol. Studies, Apr. 1903: 


250 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


which we have Hebrew originals. Three times éxiyyaois Oeod represents 
DON ny (Prov. ii 5, Hos, iv 1, vi 6, the only places where this expres- 
sion seems to occur). The fourth occurrence of the noun is again in Hosea 
(iv 6), where in the same verse NY is rendered first by yvdors and then 
by éemiyvecis}, 

Besides these passages we have only 2 Mace. ix 11, els emiyyoow 
dbciv beia pdorey, ‘to come to knowledge under the scourge of God’. 
Symmachus used the word in Ps. Ixxii (Ixxiii) 11, ‘Is there knowledge in the 
Most High?’, where the Hebrew is 73, and the xx have ydors. 

It may be worth while to add that in Wisdom we have yraors Geod 
twice, but émiyywors does not occur at all. In Ecclesiasticus also we have 
yvaous Kupiov, but ériyvwors is not found. 


Thus we learn from the Greek O. T. nothing more than that the 7 


word was coming into use, and that it was employed in a familiar passage 
of Hosea, the first part of which is cited in the N. T.; ‘I desired mercy, and 
not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings’ (Hos. 
vi 6). 


3. Verb 3. In Schweighiuser’s index to Polybius émywoéckew appears as 

“ae occurring eight times. It regularly means ‘to discover’ or ‘discern’: 

in Y- once it is coupled with pabeiv (iii 32 8, émvyvovar cai padeiv); three times 
it is strengthened by cagdds. The noun émiyywors occurs twice (iii 7 6, 
31 4). In each case the historian is defending the study of general history 
as contrasted with mere narratives of particular wars. In the latter place 
he speaks of ‘the knowledge of past events’, rjv taév mapeAnrvOorav eéni- 
yvoow, using in the context two parallel phrases, r7v trav mpoyeyovoray 
ervotnuny and ths Tay mpoyeyovoray vrouynoews. In iii 7 6 he says that 
a statesman cannot dispense with ‘knowledge’ of this kind, rijs rév mpoepy- 
pevoy érvyvocews. There is no indication whatever that any strong meaning, 
such as full or advanced knowledge, was attached to the word. 


4. The 4. We now come to the New Testament. In the Gospels and Acts 

a ahaa emvyvecket is found in the sense of ‘ perceiving’, ‘discerning’, ‘recognising’, 

onpe’s* just as in classical authors. It is interesting to compare Matt. xi 27, ovdeis 

emtywooket Tov viov, k.T.A., With the parallel in Luke x. 22, ovdels yuwdoxer tis 

€otw 6 vids, KT.A. In Luke i 4, va émcyvés rept dv xarnxnOns Adyov THY 

doddXevav, we have the word used with good effect to indicate the discern- 
ment of a particular point in regard to things already known. 

and in St In St Paul’s Epistles we find both the verb and the noun. In Rom. i 32 

Paul. we have: ofrwes 76 Stxaiwpa tod Geod éemvyvorres, Which is to be compared 

with v. 21, didte yvdvres tov Oedv. The difference, if there be one, is that 

érvyvovres is more naturally used of knowledge of a particular point. In 

1 Cor. xiv 37, émvywookéro a ypadw dvpiv dre kxupiov éotiv évrody, and 

2 Cor. xiii 5, 7) ovK émtywooxete Eavtovs drt “Incovs Xpiatos ev vpiv; it is 

again used of discerning or recognising a special quality. It is used of 

the recognition of persons in 1 Cor. xvi 18, étuywoakete ody Tovs ToLovTous, 

and in 2 Cor. vi 9, @s dyvoovpevor kal envywookdpevor (comp. the passages 


1 In 1 Kings viii 4 ériyvwors stands in Esther [xvi 6] it is a variant of &* 
for NYY in AR, but B has yous, and for evyvwpoctvny. 














ee 


ee ey 


THE MEANING OF ETTIFNQaACIC. 
cited above, Hom. Od. xxiv 216 ff., Aesch. Ag. 1596 ff.). In Col. i6f, ad’ Fs 


jpépas nKovoate Kal éméyvore tiv xdpw tov Oeod év adnOcia: Kabds éud- 
Gere x.1.d., there may be a suggestion of discriminating and recognising 
as true: we have ywockew thy xdpw in 2 Cor. viii 9, Gal. ii 9. So too in 
1 Tim. iv 3, émeyvaxdor tiv aAnOevav. 


251 


There remain two remarkable passages in which St Paul plays on Plays on 
ywookew and its compounds. 2 Cor. i 1 3, ov yap adda ypahopev vpiy the word, 


> 7 A a > , a > 
GAN’ 7} @ avaywwokete 7 Kal emvywookete, eAmrifw dé Sri Ews Tédovs ém- 


yrooebe, xabds Kai eéméyvwte jyas amd pépous, dtu kavynua tpav éopev 
ka@drep kai vpeis juav. The last part of this is plain enough: ‘ye have 
recognised us, in part at any rate, as being a glory to you, as you are 
to us’. With the former part we may compare iii 2 ‘ye are our epistle, 
ywvookopém kat avaywockopém’, the full-sounding word being placed 
second. So here the sound of the words has no doubt influenced the 
selection: ‘ye read and recognise’, But we cannot say that émywdckew 
refers to a full knowledge of any kind, especially as it is subsequently 
joined with do pépous. 


In 1 Cor. xiii the Apostle compares yvdois, as a spiritual gift, with In com- 
bination 
with yuwd- 


dydrn. Tv@ors is after all in our present condition but partial; é« pépous 
yap ywookopev: the partial is transient, and disappears on the arrival of 
the perfect. So the child gives way to the man. We now see mirrored 
images which suggest the truth of things: we shall then see ‘face to 
face’. The words recall the promise of God that He would speak 
to Moses ‘mouth to mouth’ and not 8? ainyydrwv (Num. xii 8): also 
Deut. xxxiv 10, Mwojjs, ov eyyw Kupios adrov mpdcwmov Kata mpocwrov: 
and Ex. xxxiii 11, ‘The Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man 
speaketh unto his friend’, St Paul continues: dpri ywookw é« pépous, rore 
dé emvyydoopat Kabds Kai éreyvdcOnv. The thought of fuller knowledge 
which is here given is expressed, not by the change from ywacxw to its 
compound, but by the contrast with éx pépovs and by the defining clause 
introduced by xa6as!. We see this at once if we try to cut the sentence 
short, and read only: apr: ywoonw éx pépovs, Tore S€ emvyydcouat: this 
would be unmeaning; for there is no ground for supposing that it could 
mean by itself, ‘then shall I fully know’. It is probable that éemyvocopna 
is introduced because émeyvdabnv (of knowledge of a person) is to follow. 
At the same time we may admit that the full-sounding word is purposely 
chosen to heighten the effect at the close. That no higher kind of know- 
ledge is implied in the compound word is seen when we compare Gal. iv 9, 
yrovres Beod, padXov Sé yrorOevres UTr6 Geo. 


OKEW. 


The only remaining instance of the verb in the N.T. is in 2 Pet. ii 21, In 2 Peter. 


kpeirrov yap Av avrois pi) ereyvoxévar ri ddov Tis Sixaoodyns i) émeyvotow 
vmooTpéyat K.T.A. 

The noun émiyywors is freely used by St Paul. It is generally followed, 
as we might expect, by a genitive of the object: thus, duaprias, Rom. iii 20; 


in St 
with gen- 


"Erlyrwors 
i Paul; 


of God or Christ, Eph. i 17, iv 13, Col. i 10 (ef. 2 Pet. i 2, 3, 8, ii 20) : Tob itive of the 
OeAnparos adrod, Col. i 93 rod puotypiov rod Geo, Col. ii 2; ddnOeias, object; 


1 So quite correctly Euthymius Ziga- avrdv (se. Tv Oedv) mhéov* Td rap *xaOas 
benus ad loc.: ‘rére 5& émvyvdoouar’ kal émeyroOnv’ 7d mhéov dndoi. 


252 


without a 
genitive. 


5. The 
view that 
érlyvwots 
means 
‘further’ 
or ‘fuller 
know- 
ledge.’ 


Grotius. 


Lightfoot 
cites 
Justin 
Martyr, 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


1 Tim. ii 4, 2 Tim. ii 25, iii 7, Tit. i 1 (cf. Heb. x 26); mavrés dyadod, 
Philem. 6. We do indeed find yrdors similarly used of God and of Christ 
(2 Cor. x 5, Phil. iii 8); but émiyvwors had the advantage of avoiding the 
ambiguity as to whether the following genitive was objective or subjective 
(as in Rom. xi 33, 3 Bddos...yvdcews Oeod). Accordingly as a rule yrdors is 
used where knowledge in the abstract is spoken of, but émijvwors where the 
special object of the knowledge is to be expressed. 

Rom. i 28, ovk« édoxivacay tiv bedy Exew ev emyvdoe, is no exception 
to this rule. In Rom. x 2, (7Aov Geod €xovow, GAN ov kat’ émiyvaow, the 
word may perhaps suggest the idea of discernment: as also in Phil. i 9, ‘that 
your love may abound more and more év éemyvdce Kal maon aicbnce, 
els TO Soxiuatew «7A. : and in Col. iii 10 f., ‘putting on the new man, 
which is renewed cis éxiyvwow kat’ eixéva Tod Kricavros avréy, Grou ovK 
év. “EdAny x.t.X.’, Where there is no contrast with any imperfect knowledge, 
but the knowledge referred to may perhaps be specially the discernment 
and recognition of the abolition of the old distinctions of race and condi- 
tion. But perhaps it is unnecessary to search for any particular subtilty 
of meaning in the word. 


5. This long investigation has been necessitated by the determination 
of commentators to interpret émiyvwois as a fuller and more perfect kind 
of yoors. Thus Grotius on Eph. i 17 says: ‘ égiyveors proprie est maior 
exactiorque cognitio’, a remark which he repeats on Col.ig. In dealing 
however with éiyywois duaprias in Rom. iii 20 he is more cautious, 
and says: ‘émiyveois idem quod yrdors, aut paulo amplius’, Among the 
moderns Fritzsche (on Rom. i 28), Alford, Ellicott and Lightfoot take the 
same view. Lightfoot comments on the word twice (Phil. i 9 and Col. i 9). 
At the latter place he says: ‘The compound ériyveors is an advance upon 
yveots, denoting a larger and more thorough knowledge’. He cites in 
favour of this view Justin Martyr Tryph. 3 (p. 221 A): émiornpn ris éorw 
1) mapéxovea avtav Tav avOperivey kal Trav Ociwy yvaow, éreira THs ToUT@Y 
Oevorntos Kat Sixacocdyns eriyywow; The context of this passage requires to 
be carefully considered. In the preceding sentences Justin has been dis- 
cussing the nature of philosophy : it is, he says, ‘the science of the existent 
and the knowledge of the true’ (émiorjpn éori rod dvros Kal rot dAnOovs 
eriyvwois). His interlocutor objects that ém:ornun has different meanings : 
it means one kind of thing when applied to generalship, seamanship or 
medicine; another in regard to things human and divine. And then he 
asks (in the words already cited): ‘Is there an émornuyn which affords 
a knowledge (yvéors) of the actual things human and divine, and after 
that a knowledge (emiyywois) of the divineness and righteousness of 
these same things?’ Here the distinction (if we are to press for one) 
is between a knowledge which reveals to us the things themselves, and 
a knowledge which discerns certain qualities of those things. 


1 Justin is here employing acurrent Wendland’s edition iii 88. Comp. 
definition of copia. See Philodecon- also 4 Mace. i 16, codla 54 rolvuv 
gressu (Mangey i 530) copia dé émiory- earl yas Oelwy Kal dvOpwrlvwy mpay- 
Env Oelwv Kal dvOpwrivwv kal Tay ToUTwy = aT. 
airlwy, and the references given in 























THE MEANING OF ETTIFNQ CIC. 253 
Lightfoot also cites St Chrysostom on Col. ig: Zyvwre, dddd Sei re Kat Chryso- 
émvyvava. To do this passage justice we must look first at St Chrysostom’s stom, 
comment on the preceding words (v. 6), dq’ fs juépas HKovoare kal éréyvore 
Thy xapiv Tov Oeod €v ddnOeia, kabds eudere dvd "Ewadpa x.r.r. He says: 
dua deface, dua éyvore tiv xdpw Tov beod. From this it does not appear 
that he can have laid much stress on the preposition. So when he comes 
to the phrase va wAnpwbfjre thy éemiyvwow tod Oedjparos avrod, it is on 
mAnpwOjre that the stress of his comment falls: ‘iva mdnpwOijre’, pctv, 
ovx iva AdBynre- EhaBov yap> GANA TO Aeirov iva rAnpwbjre. Then below 
he says: Ti dé €otw ‘iva mAnpwdjre tiv emiyveow Tov Oedjparos adrod’; 
dia rod viod mpocdyerOa juas avT@, ovkére OV dyyédwov. drt pev ody Sei. 
mpooayerOa, eyvwre> eiret S€ duiv rd TovTo pabeiv, Kal Sid rh rov vidy 
émepyev. Again no stress falls on émiyywow. There is indeed something 
more to be learned, viz. ryv émiyvwow rod OeAnparos adrov: but it is not 
a fuller knowledge of the will of God which is in question. So he 
continues: ‘kal alrovpevou’, pynois pera modAs Tis omovdis: todTo yap 
Seixvucw, ore eyvwre, GAG Sei Te kal emevyvava. Here éyywre corresponds 
to St Paul’s éréyvwre ryv xdpwv rov deov. ‘You have learned something’, 
he says, ‘but you must needs learn something more’. The ‘something 
more’ is conveyed by t xai, not by the change of verb. If we are to 
make a distinction it must be between general knowledge (éyvwre) and 
particular knowledge (émyvdva). We cannot on the strength of this 
sentence alone insist on a new sense of émywodcoxewv, viz. ‘to learn 
further’. It is of course conceivable that a late writer might be led 
by the analogy of some compounds with émi to play upon the words in 
this particular way: but we have no proof of it at present; and even if 
it were true for the fourth century, it would be hazardous to carry such 
a meaning back to St Paul. 

Another passage cited by Lightfoot, Clem. Alex. Strom. i 17, p. 369, and 
need not detain us. It is itself borrowed from Tatian ad Graecos 40; and Shane aa 
the od xar’ émiyywow which both passages contain is a mere reproduction me rariy 
of St Paul’s words in Rom. x. 2. 

Dr Hatch in his Essays on Biblical Greek (p. 8) refers to Const, Hatch 
Apost. vii 39, with the remark that it makes émyvoors ‘the second of the ype 
three stages of perfect knowledge: yrdats, ériyrwors, mAnpoopia C Unfor- onsite: 
tunately for his readers he does not quote the passage. The writer, who tions. 
has been expanding precepts of the Didaché, says: 6 pedrov karnxeto dat 
rov Aéyor Tis dAnbelas madevécbw mpd Tod Bamricparos (cf. Did. 7) sh 
mept Tov dyevyyprov yaow, Thy Tept viod povoyevods émiyvaowy, THY TEpl TOU 
dyiov mvevparos mAnpodopiay. That is to say, a catechumen before Baptism 
must be instructed in a knowledge of the Holy Trinity. The writer is in 
want of synonyms: he may even fancy that he is working up to a climax, 
and may have chosen éniyvecis as a word of fuller sound than yroors. But 
nothing is to be gained from verbiage of this kind for the strict definition 
of words. 

Two interesting examples of émywdcxew and émyrwous may here be Further 
added. Clem. Alex. Q.D.S. 7 f.: Ovkody rd péyoroy Kal xopupacéraroy Hustra- 
Tév mpos thy Cony pabnpdror...yydvat Tov Oedv.. .Oeov gore arjoar Gas da 7 
yvdcews kal karadyeas...j pév yap Tovrov dyvota Odvaros éotw, 9 Sé 


254 


Con- 
clusion. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


émiyywous avtov Kal oikelwois Kal 4 mpos adrov aydmn Kal éefopolwcts 
porn on. TovTov oty mpatov éemiyvavar TO Cnoopévm thy dvtws Cw 
mapakedevera, dv ovdeis ereyiv@aoKet ef pt 6 vids Kal @ Gy 6 vids doKa- 
iy Sreira To péyebos Tov owripos per éxeivov Kal tiv Kawdornta Ths 
xdapiros pabeiv. It is noticeable that émiyywors comes in for the first 
time in contrast to @yvova. The first requirement for the true life is 
émyvava. It is quite clear therefore that émiyvwors here is not a fuller 
or more advanced knowledge. 

Eus. H. £. vi 11 6, a passage in a letter of Alexander of Jerusalem to 
the Antiochenes, which was brought to them by Clement of Alexandria. 
Alexander speaks of Clement as dvdpds évapérou xali Soxipov, dv tore Kat 
vpeis kal envyyooecbe. This is rendered by Rufinus wirum in omnibus 
uirtutibus probatissimum, quem nostis etiam uos et eo amplius cognos- 
cetis', This no doubt gives the general sense well enough. But the 
contrast in the Greek is between eidéva: and émuywockev, and not, be it 
noted, between ywocxew and éerrywookew. The meaning appears to be 
‘ye know him by name, and ye shall now get to know him in person’: ‘ye 
have heard of him, and ye shall now make his acquaintance’. There is no 
reason for supposing that the Antiochenes had ever seen Clement up to 
this time: otherwise we might seek to explain éemtyydcecGe as ‘ye shall 
recognise him as such as I have described him’. 


So far then as we are to distinguish between yrdois and éxiyvwors, 
we may say that yvdors is the wider word and expresses ‘knowledge’ in 
the fullest sense: émiyvwois is knowledge directed towards a particular 
object, perceiving, discerning, recognising’: but it is not knowledge in the 
abstract: that is yydors. It follows that the genitive after yydo.s may be 
either subjective or objective: but the genitive after émiyywois denotes the 
object of the knowledge. 


1 So Jerome (de wiris ill. 38) wirum 
illustrem et probatum, quem uos quoque 
scitis et nunc plenius recognoscetis. 

2 Origen’s comment on Eph. i 17 
(Cramer, p. 130) presses the sense of 
‘recognition’, in accordance with a 
favourite view of his. It is worth re- 
cording, if only as shewing that to 
him at any rate the word émlyrwois 


did not suggest a fuller or further 
knowledge: Hi yap ph rairdy éore 
ywaots Ocod Kal émiyywois Oeot adn 6 
érvywwokwy olovel dvayvwplfe. 8 marae 
eldws éredédnoTo, Boo ‘év émivyvidcer’ 
ylvovrat Oeotv madar qoecav adrév> 5- 
drep ‘ uvnoOnoovra Kal émiorpaphoovrat 
mpos Kiptov wavra Ta répara Tis vis’. 


. ee ae Se 
ee ee 





THE MEANING OF TIAHPQMA. 255 


On the meaning of mAjpwpa. 


The precise meaning of the word wzAnpopa has been a matter of much The 
controversy among biblical critics. It was discussed at great length by theory of 
C. F. A. Fritzsche in his commentary on Romans (1839), vol. ii pp. 469 f£, Eas 
and to him subsequent writers are in the main indebted for their illustra- 
tions from Greek literature. Fritzsche’s long note was drawn from him 
by the statement of Storr and writers who followed him, that wAnpopa 
always has an active sense in the New Testament. He, on the contrary, nouns in 
starts with the assertion that substantives in -ya have a passive sense, -¥% have a 
He admits a few cases in which mArpoua has an active sense: such as Passive 

< sense} 
Hurip. Troad. 823: 


AaopeSovtie tat, 
Znvos €xeus KuAikov 
mAnpwpa, kaAXioray darpeiay 


and Philo de Abr. 46 (Mangey, ii 39), where faith toward God is called 
mapnyopnpa Biov, mAnpwpa xpnoter éAridwv. But he insists that in such 
cases mAnpepa means ‘the filling’ or ‘fulfilling’, and not ‘that which fills’ 
(complendi actionem, non td quod complet). He then proceeds to show 
that the fundamental sense of rAjpopa is a passive sense. 

But we must note carefully what he means when he thus speaks of ‘id quo 

a ‘passive sense’. In ordinary parlance we understand by the passive a pe 
sense of wAnjpwya, ‘that which is filled’ (td quod completum est); but of a 
this Fritzsche has only one plausible example to offer, viz. wAnp@para, 
as used in naval warfare as an equivalent of ‘ships’ (to this we shall return 
presently). He himself, however, uses the expression ‘passive sense’ to 
cover instances in which wA/popa means ‘that with which a thing is filled’ 
(id quo res completur s. completa est). This extension of phraseology 
enables him, with a little straining, to find an underlying passive significa- 
tion in all instances of the use of rA7peyua, apart from those which he has 
already noted as exceptions. ? 

Lightfoot, in his commentary on Colossians (pp. 257—273), discusses Light- 
the word mA/pepa afresh, and deals (1) with its fundamental significa- pn 
tion; (2) with its use in the New Testament; (3) with its employment 
as a technical term by heretical sects. At the outset he recognises 
the confusion which Fritzsche produced by his unjustifiable use of the 
expression ‘passive sense’. Thus he says: ‘ He apparently considers that 
he has surmounted the difficulties involved in Storr’s view, for he speaks 
of this last [id quo res impletur] as a passive sense, though in fact it is 
nothing more than id quod implet expressed in other words’. 


256 


and modi- 
fication : 


the result 
of the 
agency 
of the 
verb: 


yetstrictly 


passive. 


Difficulty 
of this 

theory il- 
lustrated. 


The 
passive 
sense not 
to be in- 
sisted on. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Lightfoot, accordingly, starting with the same postulate of the passive 
signification of all verbal substantives in -~a, undertakes to find a genuine 
passive sense underlying those instances in which Fritzsche had interpreted 
mAnpopa as id quo res impletur. ‘Substantives in -ya’, he says, ‘formed 
from the perfect passive, appear always to have a passive sense. They 
may denote an abstract notion or a concrete thing ; they may signify the 
action itself regarded as complete, or the product of the action; but in 
any case they give the result of the agency involved in the corresponding 
verb’. 

Lightfoot appears to have correctly diagnosed the formations in -ya, 
when he says, ‘they give the result of the agency involved in the corre- 
sponding verb’. It is, however, unfortunate that, in his desire to be loyal 
to what he speaks of as a ‘lexical rule’, he insists that ‘in all cases 
the word is strictly passive’. For the maintenance of this position 
involves again an extension of the term ‘passive’, not indeed so violent 
as Fritzsche’s, but yet unfamiliar and easily leading to misconceptions. 
Thus, to take one instance, we may allow that xéAvyua is in the first place 
the result of ‘hindering’, ie. ‘hindrance’. But when the ‘hindrance’ is 
thought of not merely as an abstract idea, but as a concrete thing, it has 
come to mean ‘that which hinders’; that is to say, it has acquired in 
usage what we should naturally call an active signification. And yet the 
theory in question demands that cédvpua, the result of the agency of the 
verb codvo, shall be ‘ strictly passive’. 

The straits to which Lightfoot is put by this theory may be illustrated 
from his interpretation of the word mAnpepya in Mark ii 21, the saying 
about the new patch on the old garment. The true text of St Mark at 
this point is somewhat rough, but not really obscure: No man seweth 
a piece of new (or undressed) cloth on an old garment; «i d€ yn, aiper 
TO TAnp@pa am’ avTov, TO Kawoy Tov maAaov. Our old translators rendered 
mAnpepa, ‘the piece that filled it up’; taking mAyjpwpa in the sense of 
‘the supplement’. It cannot be denied that this gives an admirable 
meaning in this place. Perhaps a stricter writer would have said dvam)7- 
popa, for dvarAnpoty seems to differ from mAnpody in the same way as ‘to 
fill up’ differs from ‘to fill’: it suggests the supply of a deficiency, rather 
than the filling of what is quite empty to start with. Apart from this, 
which is perhaps somewhat of a refinement, we might render the words 
literally : ‘the supplement taketh therefrom, to wit, the new from the old’. 
But Lightfoot boldly refuses the obvious explanation, and, insisting on his 
theory, interprets 7d mAnpwpa as ‘the completeness which results from the 
patch’: ‘the completeness takes away from the garment, the new com- 
pleteness of the old garment’. We must hesitate long before we dissent 
from the interpretations of so great an expositor: but we are sorely tempted 
to ask if there is not a nearer way to the truth than this. 

To return: if we are to have a theory to cover all these formations 
in -pa, it seems wisest to abandon altogether the traditional rule ‘that 
substantives in -ua have a passive sense’, and adopt in its place the wider 
rule ‘that they give the resuw/t of the agency of the corresponding verb’. 
This result may be thought of as primarily an abstract idea. But it is 
a common phenomenon in language that words denoting abstract ideas have 





THE MEANING OF TTAHPOMA. 257 


a tendency to fall into the concrete. The result of ‘mixing’ is ‘mixture’ 
(abstract); but, again, the result is ‘a mixture’ (concrete)}. 

But before we discard a venerable tradition, let us try to do it some False 
measure of justice. There must have been some reason for a rule which @2alogy 
has dominated us so long: and the reason appears to be this. There are ° : fe t 
two familiar sets of substantives in Greek which are derived from verbs: Hit > 
they are commonly spoken of as those ending in -ovs and those ending 
in -ua. When we compare them for such verbs as modo, mpdoca, didmpt, 
piyvups, we find that the one class (zoinots, mpagis, déors, pigs) expresses 
the action of the verb—‘making’, ‘doing’, ‘giving’, ‘mixing’; while the 
other class (moinua, mpayya, Sova, piypa) represents the result of that 
action—‘a thing made’, ‘a deed’, ‘a gift’, ‘a mixture’. A vast number 
of similar examples can be cited, and at once it appears that we have 
a simple distinction between the two classes: substantives in -o.s have 
an active sense, substantives in -ua have a passive sense. Moreover we 
observe an obvious similarity between the formations in -ya and the perfect 
passive of the verbs from which they are derived : 


TETOiNUAL, TEeTONnpLEVvos, Toinua 
mémpayyat, Tempaypevos, mpayya 
dédopat, Sedopevos, Sova 
péprypat, peptypeévos, piypya. 


It is probable that this ‘false analogy’ has had something to do with Forms in 
propagating and maintaining the idea that these formations are specially -#a7-, not 
connected with the passive. It would certainly conduce to clearness and ™ “#* 
accuracy if these formations were spoken of as formations in -yar-, as their 
oblique cases show them to be. The formative suffix is added directly 
to the root or to the strengthened verbal stem: as pry-, pey-par-; moun-, 
rrown-war-; Whereas for the perfect passive the root is first reduplicated, 
pé-pey-at, me-troin-pat. The original meaning of the formative suffix -yar- 
is now altogether lost to our knowledge. It appears in Latin in a stronger 
form as -mento-, and in a weaker form as -min-; cf. ‘ornamentum’ (from 
‘ornare’), and ‘fragmen, -minis’ (from ‘frangere’). Side by side with these 
Latin forms we have others in -téon-, as ‘ornatio, -onis’, and ‘fractio, -onis’, 
which are parallel to the Greek derivatives in -c-. 

The help that we gain from comparative grammar is thus of a negative —_ 
kind; but we may be grateful for it, as releasing us from bondage to the aida rag 
old rule which connected these formations with the passive of the verb. ¢hoir sig- 
We are now thrown back upon usage as our only guide to the discovery nification. 
of a general signification which may serve as the starting-point of their 
classification. It may be questioned whether we ought to demand such 
a general signification; but if we do, then ‘the reset of the agency of 
the corresponding verb’ may serve us well enough. Thus mpaypa is the 
result of ‘doing’, ie. ‘a deed’; dopa, the result of ‘giving’, a gift’; 
ornamentum, the result of ‘adorning’, ‘an ornament’ ; Jragmen, the 


1 It happens that ‘a mixture’, when and is passive; but ‘a legislature’ is 
it ceases to be an abstract, is passive; active and ‘ legislates’. 
so, too, ‘a fixture’ is ‘a thing fixed’, 


EPHES.” 17 


258 


Classi- 
fication : 


neutral, 


passive, 


andactive, 


Usage 
sometimes 
wavers. 


Forms in 
-ot- also 
vary in 
meaning. 


The use of 


TARpwHA, 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


result of ‘breaking’, ‘a fragment’. But it is quite possible that this — 
result should be followed by a substantive in the genitive case, so as to 
express the same relation as would be expressed if the corresponding © 
verb were followed by that substantive in the accusative case. Thus . 
ornamentum domus would express the same relation as ornare domum: — 
and xéAvpa ris éemtxeipjoews, AS Kodvew Thy émixelipnow. When this is — 
the case, the word may fairly be said to have an active sense. In Latin | 
we have such instances as solamen, leuamen, nutrimen, momen (=moui- 
men), and many others; most of them having fuller forms, perhaps as a — 
rule later, in -mentum. ) 

We may conveniently classify the Greek words of this formation in -par- 
under three heads: | 

(1) Where the verb is intransitive, and accordingly there is nothing 
transitive about the corresponding substantive: as dydvopa, airvvypa, 
dAaCoveupa, GAya, duaprnua, Buorevpa, yéAaocpa, Kavynpua. 

(z) Where the verb is transitive, and the substantive corresponds to 
the object of the verb, and thus may rightly be said to have a passive © 
sense: aS GyyeApa, dydpacua, a&yuppa, airnua, dkovopa, dxpoapa, yévynpa. | 

(3) Where the verb is transitive, and the substantive is no longer the 
object of the verb, but the object can be expressed as a genitive following 
the substantive: as dyAdiopa, dyuopa, dypevpa, ZOpocpa, aidpnpya, addAoiwpa, 
dupa, duvypa, avaceiopa, evdevypa, WOvopa, piunua, cxyiopa. Why should 
not these be called active? 

It is important to notice that in distinguishing between classes (2) and 
(3) usage is our only guide: there is nothing whatever in the nature of the 
formation which points us in one direction rather than in another. As 
a matter of fact many words oscillate between the two meanings. *AyaAya, 
for example, may be the object ‘honoured’ (as dya\pata bedy), or that 
‘which gives honour’ to the object (as dya\ya Sdpov): Bpdpa may be the 
food eaten’ or the canker that eats: Booxnya, the cattle that are fed, or 
the food that feeds them: but it is seldom that both meanings are thus 
retained together. 

If the forms in -yar- perplex us by their apparent inconsistency, the 
forms in -o.- are scarcely less unsteady. They ought properly to remain 
in the abstract region to which they certainly belong; but they are very 
unwilling in many cases to be so limited. They choose to descend into the 
concrete, and in doing so they often coincide with the corresponding forms 
in -yar-. Thus in practice we find that raéis and rdyya can both mean 
‘a rank’; mpagis and mpaypa, ‘a deed’; evdeErs and evderypa, ‘a proof’; 
épwrnots and éepwrnua, ‘a question’. The starting-points of the two sets 
of words are different: the forms in -o.- denote the action in process; the 
forms in -yar-, the action in result. In the first instance always, in the 
second sometimes, the primary meaning is an abstract one; and so long as 
the abstract meaning is retained the distinction between the two sets of 
words is clear enough. When however the abstract gives way to the 
concrete, the distinction often disappears. 

We have said enough on these two formations in general to clear 
the way for a consideration of the word zArjpeya, which has suffered 
hitherto from the loyalty of its expositors to a grammatical canon against 





THE MEANING OF TTAHPQMA. 259 


which it was determined to rebel. We may first examine some of the asa nau- 
examples ordinarily cited. We begin with two nautical usages of the tical term; 
word. Nady mAnpodv, or mAnpotoba, is ‘to man a ship’, or ‘to get it 
manned’; and the result of such action in either case is rAjpwpua, which 

has the concrete meaning of ‘a crew’. That mArjpwya sometimes means 

“the ship’, as being ‘the thing filled’ with men, is not a strictly accurate 
statement. For in the passages cited (Lucian, Ver. Hist. ii 37, 38, and 

Polyb. i 49) the literal meaning is ‘crews’; though ‘to fight with two 

crews’ (dé dvo0 mAnpwpdrev paxerGa) is only another way of saying, ‘to 

fight with two ships’. The other nautical use of mAjpoyua for a ship’s 
‘lading’ or ‘cargo’ is again a perfectly natural use of the word when it 

is concrete. To say that in these two instances wAjpwya does not mean 

‘that with which the ship is filled’ is to make a statement difficult to 
maintain : and it is not easy to see what is gained by maintaining it. 

There is a whole class of instances in which the word mAnpoya has as a ‘full 
a somewhat stronger sense, viz. that of ‘the full complement’. Thus in Comple- 
Aristid. Or. xiv p. 353 (Dind.) we have pyre avrdpkers €oeo Oar mANp@pa Evos meneg 
olkeiov otparevparos mapacyéo bat, i.e, enough to put it at full strength. So 
mAnpepa Spaxos (Eccles. iv 6) means ‘a handful’; wAjpwopa orvpisdos, ‘a 
basketful’!. In these cases the ‘fulness’ spoken of is a ‘complement’ in 
the sense of entirety: it is strictly a ‘fulness’ in exchange for ‘emptiness’. 

Another shade of meaning may be illustrated by the well-known passage as ‘that 
of Aristotle, in which he is criticising Plato’s Republic (Arist. Polit. iv 4). without 
The simplest conceivable form of a city, Socrates had said, must contain six aoe 

ples e of a city, Socrates : co thing is 
kinds of artisans or labourers—weaver, husbandman, shoemaker, builder, incom- 
smith, herdsman ; and in addition to these, to make up a city, you must plete’. 
have a merchant and a retail dealer. ‘These together’—to use Aristotle’s 
words—‘form the pleroma of a city in its simplest stage’: raira mavra 
vyiverat mAYpopa Tis mpdrns modews. If you have all these elements present, 
then your extremely simple city is complete. They are its pleroma. With 
them you can have a city, without them you cannot. Nothing less than 
these can make a city, gud city, complete. 

This last example is of special interest in view of St Paul’s use of Eph. i 23. 
=Ajpeopa in Eph. i 23, where the Church is spoken of as that without 
which in a certain sense the Christ Himself is incomplete. For the 
theological import of the word, however, reference must be made to the 
exposition, pp. 42 ff., 87 ff, 100 f. The present note is confined to its 
philological signification. 


1 Comp. Mark viii 20: récwy opupi- 
Swv wrypwhuara kracpdrwv hpare; ‘How 
many basketfuls of fragments took ye 
up?’ ‘Basketfuls’ is a harsh plural; 
but St Mark’s Greek is certainly not 
less harsh. As to Mark vi 43, xal jpav 
Krdopara Sdbdexa xogdivwv mAnpdpyata, 


we can but say that on no theory of 
the meaning of mdnpwpara could it 
ever have been tolerable to a Greek 
ear, If St Mark wrote it so, the 
other Evangelists were fully justified 
in altering it, even though the later 
copyists were not. 


17-2 


260 


A meta- 
phor from 
building. 


Details of 
the con- 
struction 
of ancient 
buildings. 
Eleusis. 
Lebadeia. 


Specifi- 
cations of 
contract ; 


fines; 


payment; 
testing 
of work. 


St Paul’s 
language 
illustrated 
hereby. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


On the word cvvappororyeiv. 


The history of this word is of sufficient interest to deserve a special 
note; and its investigation will incidentally throw some fresh light on 
one of St Paul’s favourite metaphors. 

The materials for our knowledge of the methods of construction of 
large public buildings in Greece have been greatly increased of late by 
the publication of a series of inscriptions. The most important of these 
are the contracts for the quarrying and preparing of stones for sacred 
buildings at Eleusis in the fourth century B.c. (CZA iv 1054 0 ff.), and the 
contracts for the construction of an immense temple of Zeus at Lebadeia 
in Boeotia, a work which was never brought to completion’. The latter 
are printed in CJG, GS i 3073, and also with a most instructive commentary 
in E. Fabricius de architect. Graeca (1881): they appear to belong to the 
second century B.C. 

The Lebadean inscription opens with a direction to the contractor to 
have the whole of the contract carved on tablets which were to be set up 
in the sacred enclosure. It proceeds to state that, if the contractor be 
guilty of fraudulently putting in bad work (xaxoreyvov), or of any breach 
of the regulations, he shall be fined ({jprwéjcera); and later on we find 
a similar penalty attached to negligence on the part of the workmen. The 
payment is to be made by instalments, a portion being reserved until the 
work has been finally passed after careful examination by the vaomooi and 
the dpyiréxtwy: Kai ovvtehécas ddov rd Epyor, drav SoxipacO7, Koprcdcbo 
To émdéxarov TO vroherpbér. 

We cannot fail to be reminded of St Paul’s words in 1 Cor. iii 10 ff.: ds 
copes apxeréexta@v Oepéduov €Onxa, GAdos S€ éroxodope?. Exacros dé Bre- 
mér@ TOs €moukodopet> Oeyédvov yap GdAdAov ovdeis Svvatar Geivar mapa. rov 
Kelpevov, Os €atw “Inaods Xpiotos- ef S€ tis émoxodopet emi Tov GOewédrov 
xpuciov, apytptov, Ai@ous Timpiovs, EVAa, ydprov, Kaddunv, éxadoTov TO Epyor 
havepoy yernoerat, 7) yap nuépa SnAwoer: Ste ev mupt dmoxadvmrerat, Kal 
éxdorouv Td épyov omoiov éorw To mip atrd SoKxipdoes. et Twos Td Epyov 
bevel O émotxodopnoev, wtoOdv Aneta: et Twos TO Epyov KaTakanceTat, 
(nprwOnoerat. 





1 Compare Pausan. ix 39 4 Toirov 
perv St dud 7d péyeOos 7 kal T&v wodeuwr 
7d ddN\eraddAnAOY adelkacw Tyulepyov. 

2 Fabricius estimates that there 
must have been at least 16 of these 
tablets, and that they must have con- 
tained altogether not less than 130,000 
letters; and these dealt only with a 


small fraction of the whole building. 
The payment was reckoned at the rate 
of a stater (=3 drachmas) and three 
obols for the cutting of a thousand 
letters, This preliminary work was 
to be done within ten days from the 
first advance of money to the con- 
tractor. 





THE MEANING OF CYNAPMOAOTFEIN. 261 


The inscription has a further interest in connexion with this passage, Further 
in that it records a contract for the continuation of work which has already illustra- 
advanced to a certain stage. Stones already in position are spoken of as t#Ve de- 
keipevor kat TéAos Exovres: comp. CLG, IMA ii 11 6 viv keipevos Bepéduos. ee 
The Apostle has combined with his metaphor the conception of the Day 
of the Lord that tests by fire (Mal. iii 1 f£), and this accounts for the 
remainder of the remarkable phraseology of the passage. With the words 

which follow (v. 17), et res rév vadv Tod Oeot pbeiper, POepet rodrov 6 Oeds, POelpew. 
it may not be altogether irrelevant to compare (Leb. 32 ff.) cal édy riva 

vy ALOov SiapOeipy...€repov drokaracrncet Sdxiyov tois itor dvav@pacw, 

ovdev emixwdvovra Td Epyov: tov dé Siapbapévra ibov eédker ex rod iepovd 

€vTOs NEpav mévre, K.T-A. 

We may pass now to the passage which has suggested this note, Eph. ii Eph. ii 21. 
21 maca oixodopn ovvappodoyoupern, and endeavour to find the exact sense 
of the verb dppodoyciv. We must begin by considering certain analogous 
forms which occur in the phraseology of building. 

AtOodcyos is a word frequently found in company with réxrwy, The Builder’s 
one is a fitter of stones, as the other is a joiner of wood. For \Ooddyor terms. 
kal réxroves see Thuc. vi. 44, vii 43, and other references given by Blimner A.00d4yos: 
Technologie iii 5. The original meaning appears to have been ‘a chooser at first ‘a 
of stones’; and that this was still felt is seen from Plato Legg. ix 858 8, trees as 
kaOarep 7 AcOodAdyous 7) Kai Tivos érépas apyopuévois cvoTacews, mapaopr- os 
gacOa xvdnv €& dv exrckoueba ra mpdcoghopa TH peddAovon yerjoecbat 
overages: and X 902 H, ovde yap dvev opixpayv Trois peyadous daaiv of ALOo- afterwards 
Adyot AiBous ed Keioa. But the word obtained a technical meaning in the ‘a fitter 
fitting of stone-work where every stone was cut to measure. Julius Pollux ae 
gives AcBoddyos and AGoAoyeiv aS Synonyms Of AvGoupyos and AcOoupyeiv?: : 
moreover, as an equivalent of Avddcrpwrov, he gives AvboAdynpa, which is 
found in Xenoph. Cyrop. vi 3 25. 

In the earlier building, and probably always in certain classes of work, The pro- 
stones were selected to fit, rather than cut according to prescribed mea- cess of 
sures. But in the temple-building with which our inscriptions deal the t™p!e- 
exact measures were defined in the contracts, and the stones had to be - 
hewn accordingly. No mortar was used, and the whole process of fitting 
and laying the stones was a very elaborate one. It is fully described in the 
contract for the paving of the stylobates in the Lebadean inscription. 

There were two parts of the blocks (xaraorpwrjpes) which had to be Preparing 
worked : the lower surface (8do1s) and the sides (dpyoi). In each case not the stones. 
the whole of the surface was smoothed, but only a margin, the interior 
part being cut in, so that there might be no projections to produce uneven- 
ness when the stones were brought together. The margins were carefully 
smoothed, first with a fine tool, and then by a rubbing process. The 
smoothness was tested by the xavav, a straight bar of stone (Aiéwos 
xavev) or, for the larger surfaces, of wood (£vAwos xavedv). The xavdv The xavdr. 
was covered with ruddle (uivros), and then passed over the surface: 
wherever the surface did not take the ruddle, it was shewn to be still 
uneven; and the work was continued, until the surface, when rubbed 

1 Pollux vii 118 ff.: Novpydy, not tine ms, which at this point seems 
AcGovrAKdy, is the reading of the Pala- to present a better text. 


262 


The ter- 
mination 
-doyeiv : 
used wide- 
ly by false 
analogy. 


So in dppo- 
Aoyetv. 


Various 
senses of 
apps. 


“Apuono- 
vyelv de- 
notes the 
whole 
process. 


Used by 
Sextus. 
Empiri- 
cus, 


and in an 
epigram. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


with the xavwy, was uniformly red. With this compare Eurip. H. F/. 945 
Babpa | oir xavor xat TiKois Hppoopéva. The names given in the in- 
scriptions to the processes of polishing and of testing respectively were 
Tptpparoroyeiv and pirrodoyeiv. These terms are not found in literature: 
no doubt they were simply masons’ words; and it is possible that the 
termination (-Aoyeiv) was due to a false analogy with the familiar A:6o- 
Aoyetv. It is clear at any rate that the original meaning of the termination 
has completely disappeared in these compounds. Another word of the 
same order is Wydodoyeiv, of working in mosaic: see Tobit xili 17 ai 
mAareiat “Iepovoadrp BypvAd@ Kal avOpaxt Kat Aibm éx Sovdeip Wypodo- 
ynénoovra, If this were shewn to be an early word, we should incline 
to give the termination its full meaning in the first instance, and then to 
suppose the whole word transferred from the selecting of the pieces of 
mosaic to their setting: but it may quite well be regarded as formed 
merely by analogy, like tpipparodoyety and pirrodoyeiv. 

It is reasonable to believe that in dppodoyeiy we have yet another of 


. these formations due to analogy: for the termination cannot in this case 


have ever had its proper force. If this be so, the exact technical 
meaning of dpyds ceases to be of moment for the understanding of the 
verb. Probably dpyos meant first a ‘fitting’, then the joint or juncture 
where one stone was fitted to another, and then, in the sense in which 
we have already had it, the side of the stone which is worked so as to 
fit with the corresponding side of another stone. In CJA iv 1054 / it 
appears to be the juncture of two drums of a column: for there each 
appos is to have two éumdd\ca (dowel-holes) and one bronze zodos (dowel) : 
so that it seems that the éumodca must be one in the lower drum and 
one in the upper. Compare Ecclus. xxvii 2 dva pécov dppav idwv 
maynoeTar TagoaNos. 

‘Appodoyeiv, then, represents the whole of the elaborate process by 
which stones are fitted together: the preparation of the surfaces, in- 
cluding the cutting, rubbing and testing; the preparation of the dowels 
and dowel-holes, and finally the fixing of the dowels with molten lead. 
The word is a rare one; but the two examples of it which are cited are 
both of interest’. Sextus Empiricus, speaking of the weakness of divina- 
tion from the signs of the Zodiac, says (M. v 78): rd d€ mavrav Kupidraroy, 
€xaotov tav (wdiwy ov avvexés eott capa, ovS domep nppodroynpévor 
T® mpo éavrov kat peP avro ouvpnrat, pndewas peragd mimrovons diacta- 
cews, x.t.A. The other example is a beautiful epigram of Philip of 
Thessalonica in the Anthology (Anth. Pal. vii 554), on a monument raised 
to a stonemason’s boy by his own father’s hands. 

Aarvmos ’ApxeréAns *Ayabavope madi Oavovre 
xepolv otfupais npyodoynoe trador. 

aiat mérpov éxeivoy, dv ovK exoAae aidnpos, 
GAN éraxn mouxivois Saxpuot Teyyopevos. 

ped: ornrn POipéva xovdn péve, keivos ty ely: 
“Ovrws marpan xelp éméeOnke AiOov. 


1 The word occurs, but perhaps not Comm. in Apocal. c. 65 atrn dé % méds 
independently of St Paul, in Andreas  颣 dylwy dpuodoyerrat. 





‘ 





THE MEANING OF CYNAPMOAOTEIN. 263 


In dear remembrance of a son 
A father cut and set this stone: 
No chisel-mark the marble bears, 
Its surface yielded to his tears. 
Lie on him lightly, stone, and he 
Will know his father’s masonry. 


The compound cvvappodoyety is not found apart from St Paul. He The com- 
uses it both in this passage and in iv 16, where he applies it to the pound 
structure of the body. Such an application was easy, as dpydés was also elias 
used of the joints of the body (4 Macc. x 5, Hebr. iv 12): but the word k 
was probably only chosen because it had been previously used in its 
proper sense, and because the Apostle delighted in combining the archi- 
tectural and physiological metaphors, as when in the context he twice 
speaks of ‘the building of the body’ (vv. 13, 16). In the parallel passage 
in Colossians (ii 19) his language is different, as there has been no 
employment of the metaphor of building. 


264 | EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 


4 / 
On Toepwots and rnpwots. 


TIdbpwors In Eph, iv 18 the word za@pwors has been uniformly interpreted as 
rendered ‘blindness’ in the Latin, Syriac and Armenian versions, and, with perhaps 
P blind- but one exception (Geneva 1557, ‘hardenes’), in the English versions, until 
Eph bck: the revision of 1881, in which it is rendered ‘hardening’. The word and its 
cognate verb zwpodr deserve a fuller investigation than they have hitherto 
received. We shall consider (1) their derivation and history, (2) their use 
in the New Testament, (3) their interpretation in early versions and com- 
mentaries, (4) the confusion of rwpody, répwors With wnpody, rypwors, (5) the 

use of zpos and its derivates to denote ‘blindness’. 


1. Deriva- 1. Idpos (in Mss frequently wépos) or Aidos mapwwos (mdpwos) is a kind 
\ eng of marble, tophus. Theophrastus Zap. 7 thus describes it: mopos 6 Aibos, 
ih Gpowos TO xp@pare kal TH wuKvornte TO Tapia, riv dé Kovpdrynra pdvoy exov 

row mopov. Aristotle speaks of stalactites as oi mopar of év trois omnAatots 

T1dpos (Meteor. 4,10). In the medical writers maépos is used for (a) a node or bony 
in medical formation on the joints, (0) a callus, or ossification which serves as a mortar 
writers. to unite the portions of a fractured bone. But it is not used, apparently, 
in the wider sense of the Latin call/um or callus, for a callosity or hardening 

of the flesh: that in Greek is rvAy. Tpoty accordingly signifies (a) to 

petrify; as in a quotation from Pisis in Suidas, ras ixuddas rwpodvra kat 

| _ aiyyovra \bader tpdmr@: (0) to cover with a callus; Diosc. i 112 xdraypa 
Twpodv 10 peapoi, ib. 86 ra dmdpwra repoi : in this technical sense rwpody and érure- 


sia pooy and their derivatives are common in the medical writers : otherwise 
mwpovv is exceedingly rare. . 
“aageurg There is a further development of meaning (c), to deaden or dull, of 


bility ; which I have only been able to find one independent example outside 
biblical Greek, Athenaeus (xii 549) cites a passage of Nymphis of Heraclea, 
in which wapodeba is used to express the insensibility of the flesh by 
reason of excessive fat. Dionysius the tyrant of Heraclea ims tpudijs Kat 
ths Kal’ jpépay adnpayias €dabev virepoapxnoas. He would fall into a coma- 
tose condition, and his physicians could only rouse him by pricking him 
with long needles: péxpe per odv Tivos imd Tis Tem@poperns ex Tov oTéaTos 
gapkos ovK everroies THv alaOnow: ei dé mpos Tov KaOapdy romov 7 Bedovn 
SteAOodaa bryce, rore Sunyeipero. Aeclian, V. H. ix 13, tells the same story, 
paraphrasing as follows: #v & dpa rotro émipedes Etépars Spay, €or’ Gy dry dia 
Tis wem@pwpeyns Kal Tpomov Tia GAXoTpias avTovU capkos Stetpmev 7 Bedovn, 
GAN” éxeivds ye Exerro AiBov Siapépwy ovdév. It is clear that the likeness to a 
stone, which Aelian introduces to explain what was probably an unfamiliar 
use of rwpotcba, refers not in the least to the hardness of the flesh—for 
the needle could pass through it— but to its deadness or insensibility. 





ON TTOPOCIC AND TTHPOCIC. 265 


The word has thus travelled some distance from its original meaning, and of 

and it was destined to go still further. The idea of insensibility could be obscura- 
transferred from organs of feeling to the organ of sight: and accordingly in #0 of 
the one place in which it occurs in the Greek Old Testament it is used of a 
the eyes: Job xvii 7 memdpwvrar yap aro dpyijs of épOadpoi pov. We render 
the Hebrew at this point, ‘Mine eye is dim by reason of sorrow’4, The 
verb i173 is used of the eyes in Gen. xxvii 1 (of Jacob), where the Lxx has 
npBrvvOnoav: Deut. xxxiv 7 (of Moses), Lxx quavpdénoav: Zech. xi 17, 
LXX éexrugAwbnoera. The other Greek translators of Job used ryaupd- 
@noav instead of werwpwvra. The word had thus come to be practically 
equivalent to wemnpeovra, ‘are blinded’, which is found as a variant 
in N* A. 

Thus we see that rapwors, losing its first sense of petrifaction or hard- Change of 
ness, comes to denote the result of petrifaction as metaphorically applied to ™e2ning. 
the organs of feeling, that is, insensibility, and more especially in reference 
to the organs of sight, obscuration or blindness. 


2. Ilwpovy and mépecis occur eight times in the New Testament: four 2. In the 
times in St Paul, three times in St Mark, and once in St John. New Test- 

(1) 2 Cor. iii 14 dAX’ érapdn ra vorfpara abray. eee 

‘Moses put a vail on his face, that the children of Israel might not gaze , Gor iii 
(érevicat) on (07 unto) the end of that which was being done away’. But in 14. 
the spiritual sense there was more than the vail on Moses’ face that pre- 
vented their seeing—érapa6n ra vojpara airév. ‘For unto this day the 
same vail at the reading of the Old Testament remains, not being lifted (or 
unvailed)—for in Christ it is done away—but to this day whenever Moses 
is read a vail lieth upon their heart . . . But all of us with unvailed face 
etc... . But if our gospel is vailed, it is in them that are lost that it is 
vailed, in whom the god of this world érigAacev ra vojpata tév aricror, 
els Td pt) adydoa Tov hwtiopov Tod evayyediov’. 

The context has to do with seeing and not seeing. Not seeing is not 

really due to the vailing of the object: it is the fault of the minds which 
should be able to see: if vailing there still be, it is a vail upon the heart. 
The minds of the Israelites érwpé67: the minds of unbelievers the god of 
this world érifdooev. Accordingly intellectual obtuseness or blindness is 
the sense which is most appropriate to this context. Indeed to speak of a 
mind or understanding as being ‘ hardened’ appears to be an unparalleled 
use of words. 

(2,3) Rom. xi 7, 25 & émnret “Iopand, rovro ouk eméruxev: 7 O€ €xAoy? Rom. xi 
éréruxyev’ of S€ Aourol éerwpwobyoay ... mépwors dro pépovs TH “Iopand 7» 25 
yeyovev. 

The context speaks of the failure of a portion of Israel. Some, ‘the 
election’, attained what they sought: the rest érapadbnoay: ‘as it is 
written, God gave them a spirit of deep sleep (xaravigews); eyes that 
they should not see, and ears that they should not hear’. This is 
followed by a quotation from Ps. Ixviii [xix], in which occur the words, 


* 


1 Jerome’s translation of the Hexa- Hebrew he gives caligauit ab indigna- 
plar text has here obscurati sunt ab tione oculus meus. 
ira oculi mei: in rendering from the 


266 


Eph. iv 18. 


St Mark. 
Mark iii 5. 


Mark vi 
52 


Mark viii 
17. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


‘Let their eyes be darkened that they may not see’. It is here to be noted 
that the one thought which is common to the two passages used to illustrate 
the rwpwars is the ‘eyes that see not’. Thus again the meaning is, ‘they 
were rendered obtuse or intellectually blind’: and ‘they were blinded’ is 
a more appropriate translation than ‘they were hardened’. In 2. 25 the 
context throws no light on the meaning. The rwpaars éx pépovs reproduces 
the thought of ». 7: part of Israel suffers from it: ‘the election’ is again 
referred to in v. 28. 
(4) Eph. iv 18 dca riv reépwow ris Kapdias avrov. 

The Gentiles are described as ‘darkened in their understanding (écxo- 
Tepévo. tH Savoia), being aliens from the life of God because of the 
ignorance that is in them by reason of the mapwors of their heart’, ofrwes 
arnAynkores éavrovs mapédwxay tH doedyeia «7.4. The whole thought of 
the passage is parallel with that of Rom. i 21 ff, and there are several 
coincidences of language. The ‘darkening of the understanding’ and the 
‘a@pwois of the heart’ may be compared with the words écxoric6n 7 
dovvetos adtév xapdia. Here the deadness or insensibility of the heart 
stands between the darkening of the understanding and the loss of feeling 
or moral sense which produces despair or recklessness. Moral blindness, 
not contumacy, is meant. ‘Hardness’ might perhaps be allowed as a 
rendering, if we could secure that it should not be misunderstood in the 
sense Of oxAnpoxapdia, ‘stubbornness’. ‘Hardening’ is a specially mis- 
leading translation: it is not the process, but the result, which is in 
question—intellectual obtuseness, not the steeling of the will. 

(5) Mark iii 5 cuvAvmovpevos emi TH mapdoe: THs Kapdias| avTar. 

Before healing the man with the withered hand, our Lord asks, ‘Is it 
lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do evil?’ When the Pharisees 
were silent, ‘He looked round on them with anger, being grieved at the 
meépwors of their heart’. The context is not decisive as between the mean- 
ings moral obtuseness or blindness and wilful hardness. Nor do the 
synoptic parallels help us: Luke (vi 10) simply drops the clause; Matt. 
(xii 10) drops rather more, and inserts new matter. 

(6) Mark vi 52 dd\X’ jv 7 Kapdia adtay rerapopérn. 

When our Lord had come to the disciples walking on the water, ‘ they 
were exceedingly amazed in themselves ; for they understood not concern- 
ing (or in the matter of) the loaves; but their heart was wrerwpapévn’. 
Here the interpretation ‘hardened’ seems needlessly severe: the point is 
that they could not understand. Luke omits the incident: Matt. (xiv 33) 
substitutes ‘ And they that were in the boat worshipped him saying, Truly 
thou art the Son of God’. 

(7) Mark viii 17 rerwpopévny ¢xere thy xapdiay dpar; 

When the disciples had forgotten to take bread and misunderstood our 
Lord’s reference to the leaven, Jesus said, ‘Why reason ye because ye have 
no bread? Do ye not yet perceive nor understand? Have ye your heart 
TmeTopopéevny? Having eyes see ye not, and having ears hear ye not? and 
do ye not remember .. .?’ Here the close connexion with ‘the unseeing 
eye’ favours the interpretation ‘moral blindness’. Indeed ‘hardness’ 
suggests a wilful obstinacy, which could scarcely be in place either here or 
in vi 52. Luke has not the incident: Matt. (xvi 9) drops the clause. 








ON TAPACIC AND THPACIC. 267 


(8) John xii 40 reripdoxer adrady robs dpOadrpods kat erdpwocev adray St John, 
Thy Kapoiay, John xii 
‘For this cause they could not believe, because that Hsaias saith again: +* 
He hath blinded their eyes, and érdpecer their heart, that they may not 
see with their eyes and perceive (vojowow) with their heart’, etc. This is 
a loose citation of Isa. vi 10, according neither with the Lxx nor with the 
Hebrew. Lxx éraxvv6n yap 7 Kxapdia Tov Aaov rovrov, Kat Tois aolv adrav 
Bapéws 7Kovaar, kal rods dpOadpods éxappvoay, py more wow Trois 6pbadpois 
kal Tois eolv akovawow kai tH Kapdia cuvaow x... Heb. ‘Make the heart 
of this people fat’, etc. (oY). 
We must note the parallels: 


, or ys + 
reTUpArwxeyv . . . iva py Woow 
> , i / 
ET@OPWTEV . . . iva pI) VoHTwWoW 


Ilwpotv here denotes the obscuration of the intellect as rupAoty denotes 
the obscuration of the sight. If érépwceyr is intended in any way to repro- 
duce the verb ‘to make fat’, then ‘dulness’ or ‘deadness’ rather than 
‘hardness’ is the idea which would be suggested, and we have a close 
parallel with the passage quoted above from Nymphis ap. Athenaeum. 


The above examination of the contexts in which mwpwoars is spoken of Contexts 
appears to shew that obtuseness, or a dulling of the faculty of perception suggest 

: A . ‘ ‘ obtuse- 
equivalent to moral blindness, always gives an appropriate sense. On the | 20> 9. 
other hand the context never decisively favours the meaning ‘hardness’, moral 


and this meaning seems sometimes quite out of place. blindness. 


3. We pass on to consider the meaning assigned by early translators 3. Versions 
and commentators. cae ones 
Gr) 2 Cor isig 
Latin, sed obtusi sunt sensus eorum. fy Bes 
Syriac (pesh.), | agus imo otaxh ‘they were blinded in their 
minds’! (the same verb renders érv¢dwcey in iv 4). 
Armenian ?, ‘but their minds were blinded’ (cf. iv 4). 
So too Ephr., adding ‘and they were not able to look upon the mysteries 
which were in their law’. 
(2) “Rom-xi'7: 
Latin, excaecati sunt. 
Syriac (pesh.), ataste< ‘were blinded’. 
Armenian, ‘were blinded’. So Ephr. ‘with blindness they were blinded 
for a time’, etc. 
(3) Rom, xi 25. 
Latin, obtusto Ambrst. Hilar. 
caecitas clar vg Ambr. Aug. 
Syriac (pesh.), Za\ howar ‘blindness of heart’, 


Armenian, ‘blindness’. 


1 According to another reading Syriac (see Muthaliana, Texts and 
(ed. Lee) ‘their m nds were blinded’ Studies, iii 3 72—9§8). For the same 
(.. OM). reason I refer to Ephraim’s Sonia 

2 I quote the Armenian version be- tary, written in Syriac, but preserve 
cause it often afford evidence of Old tous only in Armenian. 


268 


The mean- 


ing of 
‘obtusus 


? 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


(4) Eph. iv 18. 
Latin, caecitas. 
Syriac (pesh.), am=a\ hoax ‘blindness of their heart’. 
Armenian, ‘ blindness’ (‘of their heart’). 
Ephr., ‘blindness’ (‘ of their minds’). 
(5) Mark iii 5. 
Latin, caecitas a b e f q vg. 
emortua ... cordac(d) ffir. 
Syriac (sin.), | am=a\ hhadusn ‘deadness of their heart’. 
(pesh. hier.), ~om=a\ hase ‘hardness of their heart’. 
Armenian, ‘ blindness’. 
(6) Mark vi 52. 
Latin, obcaecatum f vg. 
obtusum abe dir (ff contusum). 
Syriac (sin.), 2a ‘blind’. 
(pesh.), »=% sn (used for éxayvv6n Matt. xiii 15, Acts xxviii 27) 
‘fattened’, and so ‘stupid’. 
Armenian, ‘stupefied’ as with deep sleep. 
(7) Mark viii 17. 
Latin, caecatum f vg. 
obtusum (-a)abed ffi. 
Syriac (sin.), Saxsn ‘blinded’. 
(pesh.), 2am ‘hard’. 
Armenian, ‘ stupefied’ as with amazement. 
(8) John xii 4o. 
Latin, indurautt ab e f ff q vg. 
D reruddwxev avrwy tnv xapdiay | omitting the inter- 
d excaecauit eorum cor } vening words. 
hebetauit Vig. Taps. 
Syriac (pesh.), aXszu« ‘they have darkened’ (=cxorif¢w elsewhere). 
(sin cu defective.) 
Armenian, ‘ stupefied’ as with amazement. 


In the great majority of cases the Latin interpretation is either caecitas 
or obtusio. On the second of these words something needs to be said. 
Obtundere means to beat and so to blunt (e.g. the edge of a sword). Then 
it is applied metaphorically: ‘aciem oculorum obtundit’ Plin.; ‘obtundit 
auditum’ Plin.; ‘multa quae acuant mentem, multa quae obtundant’ Cic.; 
‘obtundat eneruetque aegritudinem’ Cic. Obiusus is similarly used: 
‘mihi autem non modo ad sapientiam caeci uidemur, sed ad ea ipsa, quae 
aliqua ex parte cerni uideantur, hebetes et obtusi’ Cic.; so often of sight: 
and also of hearing, ‘obtusae aures’: and of the mind, ‘sensus oculorum 
atque aurium hebetes, uigor animi obtusus’. So again the adverb: ‘croco- 
dili in aqua obtusius uident, in terra acutissime’ Solin. Ambrosiaster’s 
comment on 2 Cor. iii 14 well illustrates the force of obtwsi: ‘quae obtusio 
infidelitatis causa obuenit : ideo conuersis ad fidem acuitur acies mentis, ut 
uideant diuini luminis splendorem’. Obtusus is the opposite of acutus. 
There is no idea of ‘hardness’ in the word. Obtusio therefore was admir- 





ON TTOPOCIC AND TTHPQACIC. 269 


ably adapted to express the sense of moral obtuseness or blindness con- 


veyed by raépwors. 

The remarkable rendering emortua corda in some Old Latin mss of Excep- 
Mark iii 5 corresponds to the variant vexpdoe: which appears only in Codex tional ren- 
Bezae. This variant has received unexpected support through the dis- 4288+ 
covery of the Sinaitic Syriac. biter 

In one passage only (John xii 40) does the Latin render by indurauit. ‘hardness’. 
Here it is to be noted that eacaecauit could not be used, as it had occurred 
just before to render reripAwxev. There appears to be no manuscript 
authority for the rendering of Vigilius, hebetauit (de trin. xii. p. 318)2. 

The Peshito Syriac always interprets in the sense of ‘blindness’ in Syriac 

St Paul: in St Mark it has ‘hardness’ twice, and ‘fatness’? once: in re™der- 
St John it has ‘darkness’. The Sinaitic Syriac has ‘blindness’ twice in ”°* 
St Mark, and ‘deadness’ once, where however it is rendering véxpwars. In 
St John its reading is not preserved. The Curetonian Syriac fails us at all 
these points, as also does the Armenian version of Ephraim’s Commentary 
on the Diatessaron®. 


Origen, Jn Matth. t. xi. c. 14 (Ru. iii 498), after having twice used (b) Com- 
erupAwoey in reference to 2 Cor. iv 4, he speaks of those who are ‘not the race potas 
planting of God, d\Aa rod twpdcavros attav thy kapdiay Kal Kddvppa sb ke 
emOévros avr’. 

In Matth. t. xvic. 3 (Ru. iii 711), ropwbévres tiv Sidvovay kat trupdro- 

Oévres tov Koyiopov ovK €BAerrov TO BovAnpa Tay ayioy ypappater. 

In Joann. fragm. (Brooke ii 297 f.), dvapéper Oat emt rov movnpoy . . 
TuprA@carta tivay Tovs 6pPOarpovrs Kal mnpdcarra [lege rapdcavra] avray thy 
kapdiay . . . dAdos odv 6 TUpAGY Tors GPOarpovs Kal mapay tas Kapdias, Kal 
GdXos 6 idpevos x.r.A. Lbid. p. 301, ris Seomoruxns Kat cwtnpiov didacKadias 
1) dorpann tupArods Kal meapapévovs eotnrirevae Tors "Iovdaiovs. 

These are the only relevant passages which I have been able to find in 
the Greek of Origen. They all suggest that he took mwpotv in the sense of 
the destruction of moral or intellectual sight. 

In Ep. ad Rom. |. viii c. 8 (Ru. iv 631), ‘sed excaecati sunt spiritu 
compunctionis’ (=dAd’ érapdénoay mvedpare karavdéews). 

Ibid. ‘et hic enim oculos et aures cordis, non corporis, dicit, quibus 
excaecati sunt et non audiunt’. 

Ibid. c. 12 (Ru. iv 639), ‘pro his qui caecitate decepti, id est, cordis 
obtusione [=zwpdce:] prolapsi sunt ... cum uero .. . coepisset Israel 


1 It is to be noted that in Tischen- 
dorf’s note ‘D’ is omitted per incuriam 
after ‘vexpwoe.’. It would seem to be 
due to this that in Wordsworth and 
White’s Vulgate vexpdce is said to be 
found in no Greek ms. 

2 On this Book see below pp. 291, 303. 

3 In regard to the Coptic I owe to my 
brother Forbes Robinson the following 
information. The root used in all 
cases is ow (Sah. twa), ‘to shut’: 


cf. Matt. xxii 12, where 6 5é égiuwidn 
is rendered, ‘but he, his mouth was 
shut’. It is found also in Eph, ii 14 
for ¢payuds. It renders tuddoiv in 
2 Cor. iv 4, 1 John ii 11, and in John xii 
40 ‘He hath shut (ew) their eyes 
and He hath shut (@w) their heart’. 
A longer form, derived from the same 
root, is used in both dialects of shutting 
a door: but the simple form is not so 
used in the New Testament. 


270 


Chryso- 


stom. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


discutere a semetipso caecitatem cordis, et eleuatis oculis suis Christum 
uerum lumen aspicere’, etc. 

In Gen. hom. vii 6 (Ru. ii 80), commenting on Gen. xxi 19, ‘God 
opened her eyes’, he quotes Rom. xi 25 and says, ‘ista est ergo caccitas 
[=e@peors] in Agar, quae secundum carnem genuit: quae tamdiu in ea 
permanet, donec uelamen literae auferatur per euangelium dei et uideat 
aquam uiuam. nunc enim iacent Iudaei circa ipsum puteum, sed oculi 
eorum clausi sunt... aperti ergo sunt oculi nostri, et -de litera legis 
uelamen ablatum est’. 

In Levit. hom. i 1 (Ru. ii 185), after quoting 2 Cor. iii 16, he says, 
‘ipse igitur nobis dominus, ipse sanctus spiritus deprecandus est, ut omnem 
nebulam omnemque caliginem, quae peccatorum sordibus concreta uisum 
nostri cordis obscurat, auferre dignetur’, etc. 

In all these passages it would seem that not only the translator, but 
also Origen himself, interpreted zaépwars in the sense of ‘blindness’. I can 
find but one passage that looks in another direction; but it does not 
disprove our view of his ordinary use of the word. | 

In Exod. hom. vi 9 (Ru. ii 149 f.), commenting on Ex. xv. 16 adroAco- 
Onrwcav, €ws av mapedAOn o ads cov, he says (quoting Rom. xi 25): ‘caecitas 
[=mdpwcis|] enim ex parte contigit in Israel secundum carnem, donee 
plenitudo gentium subintrotret: cum enim plenitudo gentium subintra- 
uerit, tunc etiam omnis Israel, qui per incredulitatis duritiam factus fuerat 
sicut lapis, saluabitur’. 

This comment shows that Origen recognised the derivation of répacis 
from mépos, a kind of stone, and that upon occasion he was prepared to 
play upon it; but it does not prove that he would ordinarily have taken it 
to mean ‘hardness’. 


Chrysostom. Cramer catena in Jo. xii 40 ovy 6 beds éma@pwcev adrav 
tiv kapdiay . .. tovs dé dvotpdémous ruprAwOErras dd Tod SiaBoXov. 

Hom. vii in 2 Cor. (ed. Ben. x 483 f.) 4 yap mépwots yvouns éotiv 
dvaiOnrov Kai dyvapovos .. . émet kal ev TH der Mwicéws ov dia Moiicéa 
éxetro [SC. TO KdAvppa] GAA dia THY ToUT@Y TaxUTNTA Kal GapKLKHY youn. 

Hom. xiii in Ephes. (xi 96) dré rovrov 7 mépwots, arb rovTov 7 cKoTOUNYN 
rhs Stavolas. ote yap pords Aduyaytos écxoticba, Grav of d6pOarpoi aobeveis 
dow: dobeveis Sێ yivovrat 7} xupav emippon movnpav 7 pevparos mAnppvpa. 
obrw 6} Kat évravOa, drav 4 OAH piyn Tav BiotiKdy mpaypdrav 7b SiopariKoy 
jpav emukrAvon THs Svavoias, €v oxordae yivera, kal KaOdmep év BdatTi kata 
Babovs Keipevor Tov rLov odK Gv SuvnGeinuev Spay, Gomep Tivos Siappayparos 
Tov moAAOv Gvwbev éemixeyuevou Udaros: ovtw 87 Kal €v Tois dodOarpois tis 
diavoias yiverat tadpwors kapdias, rovréot advacOnoia, drav pndeis thy yruxnv 
karacein poBos ... mapwors dé ovdapdbev yiverat GAN 7h dd dvacOnoias: 
rovto Ouapparres Tovs mopous* Stay yap peda memnyos els Eva TvVaynTa ToTor, 
vexpov yiverat TO pédos Kal dvaicOnror. 

Here he is trying to get at the meaning of a word which puzzles him. 
He fancies that it is derived from zopos, and denotes an obstruction of 
the pores, producing insensibility. We shall see in a moment that the 
word was often written wopwors : indeed in Cramer’s Catena, which quotes 
an earlier part of Chrysostom’s comment at this place, it is so spelt. 








ON TTOPOCIC AND TTHPOCIC. 


On the other hand it is to be noted that in commenting on Heb. iii 12 
he says (xii 63 €): dwo yap oxdnpdrnros 1 dmotia yiverac- kal kabamep Ta 
TeTOPOpeva TOY TopAT@Y Kal oKANpa ovK elket Tails Tdv larpay xepoiv, otra 
kal ai Wuxai ai cxAnpurOcioar ovk eixov TS eyo Tod Geod. 


271 


Among later Greek commentators we find occasional references to Later 
oKdnpoxapdia in connexion with the passages in which mdépwors is men- COommen- 
tioned: but the interpretation ‘insensibility’ or ‘moral blindness’ is gene- *#*°"*- 


rally maintained. 


4. Instead of mwpotv and mdpwors we have the variants mypody and 


mnpwors in the following mss!: 
Mark iii 5. 17.20. 

viii 17. 

John xii 40. 


D (aemnpopern sic). 
N I p**** (Did. de trin,i 19) [II had at first érnpdrncer]*. 


63.122.259 (these three have zem7poxev). 


Rom. xi7.  66**, 


This confusion may be taken as corroborative evidence of the fact which 
we have already learned from the versions, that mépwo.s was very com- 
monly regarded as equivalent to ‘blindness’, a meaning at which mypwors 
also had arrived from a very different starting-point? 


f Con- 
usion in 


MSS, 


5. Inpos and memnpopévos signify ‘maimed’ or ‘defective’ in some 5- pis, 


member of the body, eye or ear, hand or foot. Frequently the me 


is defined, as in the epigram, Anthol. Palat. ix 11 1 mypos 6 pev yviows, 6 8 


A ee 
ap oppact. 


mber Properly 


signifies 
‘ Mt ? 
maimed’: 


But mnpos and its derivatives, when used absolutely in the later Greek but used 


literature, very frequently denote ‘blindness’. 


by the old lexicographers (e.g. Suidas mypos: 6 wavrdmact pi) dpav), but it 


1 Forms in zop- or zopp- are also 
found: Mark iii 5 in PT h®*"!*r; vi 52 in 
XT al; viii 17 in IT; Rom. xi 25 in L 
al pauc; Eph. iv 18 in P 17 Cramer. 
So too in Job xvii 7 (referred to above), 
while S°*A have zemnpwrvTa, some 
cursives have emépwrrat. 

2 In connexion with cod. & it should 
be noted that the Shepherd of Hermas 
has two allusions to these Gospel 
passages, Mand. iv 2 1, xii 4 4; in the 
former of these & reads wernpwrat for 
memupwrat, at the latter it is not ex- 
tant. [Of the Latin versions of the 
Shepherd the Vulgata or Old Latin 
has obturatum est, the Palatine excae- 
catum est, in Mand. iv 21; in Mand. 
xii 4 4 the Vulgata has obtusum est, 
while the Palatine is defective.] 

I insert at this point two curiosities: 
(1) in Acts v 3 &* reads duarl éwnpwoev 
6 caravas riv Kapdlav cov; and there 


may be some connexion between this 
variant and the more widespread one 
érelpacev, tentauit: (2) at John xvi 6 
() Adm wewAjpwxev wav THy Kapdlar) 
Tischendorf notes: ‘go mewwpwxev 
(obduravit, ut xii 40)’. I owe to Dr 
Skeat the following information: the 
Gothic in both places has gadaubida, 
‘hath deafened’ (Goth. daub-s=Eng. 
‘deaf’); in Mark iii 5, viii 17 (vi 52 
vacat) the same root is used: ‘the 
root-sense of “deaf” seems to be 
“stopped up ”—well expressed in Eng. 
by dumb or dummy, and in Gk by 
rupdés, Which is radically the same 
word as deaf and dumb’. 

3 The two words are brought to- 
gether in the comment of Euthymius 
Zigabenus on Eph. iv 18 mupwois dé 
cat dvacbnola Kapdlas 7 mnpwors 708 
Sioparixod THS YUXTS, 6 mnpot émippon 
rabiv Kal mrAhwmupa 750var. 


This was fully recognised #180 for 


‘blind’. 


272 


This 
meaning 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


appears to have somewhat fallen out of sight in recent times. It may be 
well therefore to give some passages by way of establishing this usage. 

Plutarch Zimol. 37 7j5n mpecBvrepos dv arnpBrwt(vbn rhv bY, eira TeAws 
emnpo6n pet ddtyov (and, lower down, mypecis and memnpapévos). 

Id. Lsis 55 Aéyovow Gri rod “Qpov viv pev éeratrake viv F e£edadv xarémev 
6 Tuddry rov dpbarpoy, cira TO Him madw drédoxe, TANYHY pev aimTToperor 
THY KaTa pnva pelwow THs oEeANYnS, WHpwory Se THY Exreuuy, K.T.A. 

Philo de somniis i 5 ov mavrdmacw duBdeis Kal mnpot yeydvapev, GAN 
EXopey eimety OTL K.T.A. 

Lucian de domo 28, 29 “HXwos ... ia@rat ryv myipwow of Orion who is 
blind. 

Justin Martyr Tryph. 12 éru yap ra ara tyay wéppaktat, of dpOadrpoit 
UL@Y TemNpwVTal, Kal TeTaxuTa 7 Kapoia. 

Ibid. 33 ra 8€ dra tpav wéppaxrac kai ai xapdiac memnpovra [in marg. 
codicis remapavrat]. 

Id. Apol.i22 ywdovs cal mapadvutixods Kal ex yeverfis trovnpodst vyseis 
Temrounkevat avroy Kal vexpovs aveyeipat. Here we must obviously read mnpovs 
with the older editors. Compare Zryph. 69 trois ék yeverijs kal Kara TH 
odpkxa mnpovs, Where the context requires the meaning ‘blind’. So too we 
have in the Clementine Homilies xix 22 wepi rod éx yeverfs mnpod kal 
dvaBdeYrapevov, and in Apost. Const. v 7, 17 (Lagarde 137, 11) r@ &x 
yeveriis mnpo. The expression comes ultimately from John ix 1 ru@Adv ex 
yeveris. 

The ancient homily, called the Second Epistle of Clement, c. 1, offers 
an example of the same confusion between mwnpds and rrovnpds. Tnpol ovres 
rh Savoia is the reading of cod. A, and is supported by the Syriac rendering 
‘blind’: but cod. C has sovnpoi. Lightfoot renders, ‘maimed in our 
understanding’, and cites Arist. Hth. Nic. i 10 trois px memnpwpévors mpos 
dperny (where, however, memnpwpévos may quite well mean ‘ blinded’), and 
Ptolemaeus ad Flor. (in Epiphan. Haer. xxxiii 3, p. 217) pa povoy ro rijs 
wWuxijis Supa GdAda kat rb Tod o@patos memnpopévor. The context, however, 
in the Homily appears decisive in favour of ‘blinded’: for the next 
sentence proceeds: duatpwouw ody mepixeipevor Kal rora’rns dxAvos yéuorres 
€v tH opace, dveBréyayey x.7t.A4. Compare Acts of SS. Nereus and 
Achilles (Wirth, Leipsic, 1890) c. 21 mypos dv 81a mpocevxfs tis Aope- 
ridXas avéBrever. 

Clem. Alex. Protrept. c. 10 § 124 ouparer pev ody 7 mypacits Kal THs akojs 
1} Kopwots. 

Celsus ap. Orig. c. Cels. iii 77 airivacOat rots o€b BrXérovras ws Temnpa- 
peevous. 

Id. ibid. vi 66 xodaler Oat riyv dWiv Kal BAarrecOa Kai vopilery mnpodtoda., 

Euseb. H. HZ. ix 8 1 xara rév 6pbarpar Staheporras emt mreioroy yevdpevov 
(rb vdonpa) pupiovs dcovs avdpas dua yuvatki kal maiol mnpods dreipydgero : 
ibid. ix 10 15 mnpov adroy adinow. 

Chrys. Hom. vi in Eph. (on Eph. iii 2: of St Paul’s conversion) cai rd 


“~ fod . Beet , 3 , 
mpacat TS pori ekeiv@ TO aroppyTa. 


Certain words or special usages of words are sometimes found in the 
early literature of a language, and more particularly in its poetry, and are 





ON TTOPOCIC AND TIHPOCIC. 


then lost sight of only to reappear in its latest literature: meanwhile they 


273 


as old as 


have lived on in the talk of the people. Inpdés would seem to have a history Homer. 


of this kind. For in Homer J/. ii 599 we read of Thamyris, the minstrel 
who challenged the Muses: 

ai d€ yodw@odpevat mnpov béocay, avrap dodiy 

Gearrecinv apédovto Kal ékdédabov KiBapioriy. 

The simplest interpretation is that they made him blind, and further 
punished him by taking away the blind man’s supreme solace. Aristarchus 
says that mypds does not mean ‘blind’ here; but his reason is not con- 
vincing : ‘because’, he says, ‘Demodocus was blind and yet sang very 
well’. This shows at any rate that Aristarchus knew that mnpos could 


mean ‘blind’: and indeed Euripides (quoted by Dr Leaf in loc.) so 
took it. 


We find then the following significations of mépwars!: 

(1) turning into wépos: 

(2) more generally, the process of petrifaction: 

(3) a concomitant of petrifaction, insensibility: 

(4) with no reference to hardness at all, insensibility of flesh (due to 
excessive fat): 

(5) again with no reference to hardness, insensibility of the organs of 
sight, and so obscuration of the eyes. 


At this point the word has practically reached the same meaning as had 


been reached from quite another starting-point by mjpeors. The two words 
are confounded in mss, and perhaps were not always distinguished by 
authors at a still earlier period. 

In the New Testament obtuseness or intellectual blindness is the 
meaning indicated by the context ; and this meaning is as a rule assigned 
by the ancient translators and commentators. 

There seems to be no word in biblical English which quite corresponds 
to mépwos. The A.V. gives ‘hardness’ in the Gospels, and “blindness ’ in 
the Epistles. ‘Hardness’ has the advantage of recalling the primary 


Summary. 


Difficulty 
of render- 
ing 
mwpwots in 


signification of the word. But this advantage is outweighed by the intro- Rnolish: 


duction of a confusion with a wholly different series of words, viz. cxAnpu- 
yew, okdnpérns, oKAnpoxapdia. These words convey the idea of stiffness, 
stubbornness, unyieldingness, obduracy; whereas tepwors 18 numbness, 
dullness or deadness of faculty. In oxAnpoxapdia the heart is regarded 
as the seat of the will: in mépwors rijs kapdias it is regarded as the seat 
of the intellect. We feel the difference at once if we contrast the passages 
in which the heart of the disciples is said to be werwpwpérn (Mark vi 
52, viii 17) with the words in [Mark] xvi 14, aveldurev THY dmoriay avréy 
kai okAnpokapdiav, bru Tois Oeacapevors avtov éynyeppéevov €K verp@v OUK 
éricrevoav—a stubborn refusal to accept the evidence of eye-witnesses*. 
So in Rom. ii 5 obstinacy is denoted by oxAnporns : kara dé Thy oKAnpd- 


1 I omit from this summary the wpwyév7, on the other hand, is nearer 
technical usages of the medical writers to that of dvdyrou Kal Bpadets 77 xapola 
referred to above. rod muorrevew x.T.A. in Luke xxiv 25. 

2 The idea conveyed by xapdla zre- 


EPHES.? 18 


274 


*hardness’ 
is mis- 
leading: 


‘* blind- 
ness’ gives 
the sense, 


but varies 
‘the meta- 
‘phor. 


Ancient 
interpre- 
tations 
must not 
be lightly 
rejected. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


TnTa Gov Kal aperavdnroy Kapdiay Onoavpites veavtg dpynv: compare Acts 
xix 9 os d€ tives eoxAnpivovro Kal HreiOourl. 

If ‘hardness’ does not always suggest to an English ear unbendingness 
or obstinacy, its other meaning of unfeelingness or cruelty (for we com- 
monly regard the heart as the seat of the emotions”) is equally removed 
from the sense of rapacis. 

For these reasons ‘ hardness’ cannot, I think, be regarded as other than 
a misleading rendering of rapwors: and ‘hardening’ (R.V.) is open to the 
further objection that it lays a quite unnecessary stress on the process, 
whereas the result is really in question. 


‘Blindness of heart’ comes nearer to the meaning than ‘hardness of © 


heart’; and ‘their minds were blinded’ is far more intelligible in its 
context than ‘their minds were hardened’, The objection to it is that 
it introduces an alien metaphor. ‘ Deadness’, however, is open to a like 
objection ; and ‘dullness’ is too weak. ‘Numbness’ and ‘benumbed’ are 
not for us biblical words, nor would they quite suit some of the contexts, 
but they might be useful marginal alternatives. On the whole, therefore, 
it would seem best to adopt ‘blindness’ and ‘blinded’ as being the least 
misleading renderings: and in John xii 40 to say, ‘ He hath blinded their 
eyes and darkened their hearts’. 

The length of this discussion may perhaps be justified by a reference 
to the unproved statements which are found in Grimm’s Lexicon (ed. 
Thayer), such as ‘awpow ... (m@pos, hard skin, a hardening, induration) 
to cover with a thick skin, to harden by covering with a callus’, ‘ ro- 
pwo.s ths Kapdias [hardening of heart], of stubbornness, obduracy’. The 
note in Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 314, is more careful, but yet 
contains the explanation that ‘a covering has grown over the heart’, and 
throws doubt on the usage of anpés to which I have called attention 
(‘perhaps occasionally used of blindness’). My object has been to in- 
vestigate a very rare word, the ancient interpretation of which appears to 
me to have been too lightly thrown aside. 


1 It is interesting to note in our to mrépwo.s ris Kapdlas. 
Litany the petitions for deliverance 2 Compare Burns’s lines in his 
(rt) ‘from all blindness of heart’, ‘Epistle to a Young Friend’: 


(2) ‘from hardness of heart, and con- I waive the quantum of the sin, 
tempt of thy word and command- The hazard of concealin’; 
ment’: the latter is shewn by the But och, it hardens a’ within, 
context to represent okdnpoxapdla, And petrifies the feelin’, 


while the former doubtless corresponds 





EPISTOLARY PHRASES. 275 


On some current epistolary phrases. 


During the last ten years immense accessions have been made to our Recent 
knowledge of the life and language of the Greek-speaking inhabitants of discoveries 
Egypt in the centuries immediately preceding and following the Christian oe 
era. The publication of the Berlin series of papyri began in 1895 and has 
been steadily continued ever since’, Simultaneously scholars in our own 
country and elsewhere have been busy in discovery and transcription. No Private 
part of this rich material has a greater human interest than the private corr 
letters which passed between master and servant, parent and child, friend ee: 
and friend, in those far off days. The dry soil of Egypt has preserved them 
from the fate which everywhere else overtakes correspondence intended to 
serve but a momentary purpose and wholly destitute of literary merit. To important 
the historian who desires to give a picture of the life of a people these to the 
simple documents are of unparalleled interest. To the palaeographer they ee 
offer specimens of handwriting, often precisely dated and generally assign- the oe a 
able with certainty to a limited period, which bid fair to effect a revolution bial 
in his study. To the student of the New Testament they open a new store- and the 
house of illustrative material: they shew him to what an extent the writers biblical 
of ‘the Epistles’ stood half-way between the literary and non-literary styles er 
of their day; and, together with the mass of similar documents—leases, 
receipts, wills, petitions, and so forth—which the great papyrus-finds have 
placed at our disposal, they form an unexpected and most welcome source 
from which he may draw illustrations of the biblical vocabulary”. 

I have called attention in the exposition (pp. 37 f.) to a phrase which The illus- 
frequently occurs in St Paul’s letters and which receives illustration from tration of 
this epistolary correspondence; and, although the Epistle to the Ephesians } 1. 

3 ; 4 : phrases 
from its exceptionally impersonal character offers few points of contact from 
with the documents in question, I take this opportunity to draw together papyrus 
some interesting phrases which they offer to us, in the hope that other ‘ters 
workers may be induced to labour more systematically in a new and 


fruitful field. 





1 Aegyptische Urkunden aus den 
koniglichen Museen zu Berlin, Grie- 
chische Urkunden (three volumes): 
transcribed by Wilcken, Krebs, Viereck, 
ete. These are cited below as B.P. (= 
Berlin Papyri). The other collections 
principally drawn upon are: Greek 
Papyri chiefly Ptolemaic, edited by 
B. P. Grenfell (1896); The Oxyrhynchus 
Papyri (two volumes), edited by B. P. 


Grenfell and A. S. Hunt (1898-9); 
Faytim towns and their Papyri, i 
by Grenfell, Hunt and D. G. Hogarth 
(1900). 

2 Professor G. Adolf Deissmann led 
the way in his Bibelstudien (1895) and 
Neue Bibelstudien (1897): but new 
material is being rapidly added to the 
stores upon which he drew. 


18—2 


276 
Typical 


letters. 


1. Apion 
to Epi- 
machus. 


A well 
educated 
writer, 


2. Antoni- 
us Maxi- 
mus to 
Sabina. 


The same 
writer. 


3. Tasu- 
charion to 
Nilus. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


I shall begin by giving one or two specimens of letters, more or less 
complete; and I shall then confine my attention to particular phrases. 


’Amiov ’Emipdy@ To tarp Kat Kkupio mAciota yaipew 
‘ acess @ TaTpt 6 Kuplte s i: geese ‘ 
\ c , “~ 

IIpo pev mavrov evyouai ce vyaivey kal dia mavros épwpévoy evtuxeiv 

pera tis ddeApis pov kal rhs Ovyarpos atrijs kai rod ddehpod pov. evyapioTa 
~ , , if Ul > U od > Ld 7 
T® kupi@ Sepamids Ste pov Kiwdvvevoavros eis Oddaccay Ecwce. cvbéws Ste 
elonAOov eis Mynojvous, €daBa Biatixov mapa Kaicapos xpuaois tpeis, kal KaA@s 
poi €oTrw. pare ce ody, KUpLé ou TaTnp, ypawov por émioToALoV, MP@Tov pev 
mept THs cwrnpias cov, Sevrepoy mepl THs Tav adeAhav pov, TpiToyv iva cov 
Tpookvyyjcw THY xX€pav, Ore pe émraidevoas Kaas, kal éx TovTov éAmifw Tayv 
mpoxoa tav Gedy Oedovtav. aomaca Karitwva moda kal Tovs adeAhovs pov 
kat Sepnvidday kai rovs didovs pov. emepyrd cou ro dOovw pov dia Evernpovos. 
4 dé rs > a , > “ , A 
éore O€ pou Ovopa Avravs Magéipos. éppadcbai oe evxopuat 
Kevrupia *AOnvovikn. 

There is a postscript written sideways to the left: "Acmd¢erai oe Sepivos 

6 Tod "Ayabod Aaipovos...cai TovpBov 6 Tod TadXwviov xal.... 


This is a letter to his father from a young soldier who has had a rough 
passage’, It was written in the second century A.D., and is exceptionally 
free from mistakes of grammar and spelling. The boy has had a good 
education and is duly grateful to his father. He seems to have taken a 
new name on entering upon military service. *Avrdus is an abbreviation 
for “Avr@ros, as 60dmv is for dddnorv. I have read mpoxdya? in place of 
Viereck’s mpoxo(pi)oa: the papyrus has mpoxooa (probably intended for 
mpoxoroa). Compare Gal. i 14 mpocxorrov év r@lovdaope vrép moddovs 
ournrrKu@tas év TH yéver pov: Luke ii 52 "Incovs mpoéxonrev tH copia kar 
jAckig. ”Ezepa is the epistolary aorist; ‘I am sending’. 


> 4 , nn a r 
Avravios Magipos SaBivy ty adeApy mrciora xaipev. 
A ‘ , EA > A \ c 
IIpo pev wavtwv evxopnai ce vyiaivey, Kal "yd yap avros vyaive, pviav 
gov motovpevos mapa Tois évOade Oeois®. exopstoduny év émiorodwoyv mapa 
’Avraveivov Tov ouvrroNeirou nudy Kal émvyvous oe éppopérny Alay éydpny’ Kal 
4 a od “ od 
yo Sia racay apopyny ovx oxve oo ypawat Tepl Tis GwTnpias pov Kal TaY 
> lod cd Ul A 4 A A ~~ F > , , ¢ 
euav. aomaca, Magiov moda Kat Korpiy tov Kipiv pov. domaeral ce 7 
, 
ovpB.ds pou Avdudia cal Ma€ipos...... .-.€ppwoOai oe evxopat. 


This is written by the same hand as the preceding’ The soldier boy 
writes his new name. He has apparently married and settled down. 


, , “ > ”~ ‘ , 
Tacovyapio Neti T@ AdEAPSO Todda xaipecv. Ene 
, , ¢ , \ A ned 
TIpo pev Wavra@v evxopai oat vyiaivey, kal TO mpooKUYNnLa Gov ToLm Tapa 
a \ > / 

T@ kupl@ Sapamids. yivwoke Sri dédwxa rodepaiov Kadapeoira domahicpara 
a a > > ’ , \ a > o 
Ths oikias els TO Anuntpiov. €0 ovv moinons ypdayyov pot mept Tis oikias OTL 
iad y A > lod - , 'S oN q b€5 x A 
Ti émpaéas. Kat Tov adpaBava Tod Sapariwvos ‘mapakdos' déd@xa avT@. kal 


ypaov pot wept tis dmaypadpis. et motets THY amoypadny €po...... ka@s troteis 
1B. P. 423. I have omitted the 2 T have since found that Deissmann 

brackets by which the Berlin editors has also suggested this reading. 

indicate letters supplied where the 3 Krebs begins the new sentence with 


papyrus is illegible, and I haveslightly jyuviavy and puts no stop after Geois. 
varied the punctuation. * B.-P 033 


EPISTOLARY PHRASES. 277 


El......ypayov jot evdayior, iva airoiudow Kal avamdevow mpds oe. Kad repr 
Tay oirapior, pt) TddeL avTd. aomdopar thy adeAGyy pov Taovvddpw kal rhy 
Ovyarépa Beddaiov. domdferar vor Aidvpos kat “HArddwpos. domderar dpas 
TlroAepatos kai TiBepivos kat Sapariov. domd{opat Sapariwv “Ipovbov Kal rad 
Téxva avTov, kal SGpa kal ra Téxva avrov Kal 7 yuri, Kal "Hpwv Kal TaBors kab 
"Ioxupiawa. daomaterar vas Saropveidos. eppdabai ce edyoua. domdterac 
Tagovydptov Te.wv kat ra réxva avrijs. “Edévn dora era rv pnrépay pov Todd 
kal rovs ddeAdovs. domdtera vas Xaipnpov...vos. 

This is a second century letter from the Fayim1. Tasucharion makes A less 
mistakes in spelling and accidence. She has a large circle of friends. correct 
I cannot explain xadapeoird. dowadicpata: dodadiopa is a pledge or style. 


security; comp. mapaodadiopara in B. P. 246, 14. Tapaxdos would appear 
to stand for mapaxado ce. 


"Appw@vovs TH yAvkuTaT@ marpt yxaipeuw. 4. Ammo- 
Kopiodpevds cou rd émorddov Kal émvyvodca drt Gedy Oedévrwv SieadOns, 2OUS to 
éxapny moddd: Kal adtis Bpas apopyyy evpav éypaya cou Tavovra Ta ypdupara har father. 
omovoddtovea mpockuvicé cat. taxvTepov Ta emiyovra Epya ppovrifere. €av 7 
puxpa te inn, ere. edy oor évéxy KaddOw 6 Koptfopevos gor TO emaTodevov, 
wéuro. daomatovré oe of col mavtas Kat’ dvoua. aomdteré oe Kéhep kal oi 

avrov mavras. éppacdé cor evyxopat. 

Another second century papyrus from the Fayim?. The false concords An un- 
are surprising: kopcdpevos, érvyvotca, evpay, orovddfovca. ’Eniyovra and educated 
évéxy stand for émetyovra and evéyxy: mavras in each case is for martes. bela ae 
The phrase avrfjs Spas (comp. adrfs dpa in another letter on the same 
papyrus) is found in Clem. Hom. xx 16: comp. Evang. Petri 5, where it 
must be read for adrés dpas. "Eav 7} puxpé te etry, €orat, ‘whatever she asks 
shall be done.’ 


O¢av Tupavym TO Tyuwwrdr@ meiota xaipev. 5. Theon 

“Hpaxreidns 6 drodidovs cou Thy emioroAny early pov adehpos- dvd apaxare 0 Tyran- 
oe peta mdons Suvdpews Exew adrov cuvertapevor. jpdtnca Sé kal “Eppa beeees 
rov aderdiy Sua yparrod dynycicbal vo mepi Tovrov. xapleoa S€ pow ra 
piyora édy gov Tis emurnpacias tUXn. mpo Se mavrov vyiaive ve €Vxopat 
dBackdyvtws Ta Apicta mpattav. e€ppaco. 

This is a brief letter of introduction, written in the year 25 .p.* A letter 
‘Among the many interesting expressions contained in these few lines we a eae 
may particularly note the phrase €yew avrov cuveorapévoy, literally have 
him recommended to you, which finds a parallel in the eye pe TapyTnpévov 
of Luke xiv 18, 19. 


I. Coming now to details, we begin with the opening formulae. I. Opening 


I. Xalpew, rodda xaipe and mheiora xaipew are all common. In the 
New Testament we find yaipew in James i 1: also in two letters in the 
Acts (xv 23 and xxiii 26). In the Old Testament it occurs in letters 
inserted by the Greek translators in 1 Esdr. vi 7, viii 9, and Esther vill 13 
(xvi1). It is found many times in the Books of Maccabees, where also ds 
have moAdd xalpew, 2 Mace. ii 19. The Ignatian Epistles give us as a rule 


1 B. P. Got. 2B. P. 615. 3 Ox. P. 292. 


1. Address. 


| 278 


Another 
form, 


2. Opening 
sentence. 


The typi- 
cal form. 


Alterna- 
tive forms. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


mAciora xalpew with various additions. St Paul has a modification of the 
usual Hebrew formula: see the note on Eph.i1r. 

Another introductory form occasionally occurs, in which the imperative 
is used. Thus in B.P. 435 we have: Xaipe, Ovadepiavé, rapa tov ddedgot: 
and in B.P. 821: Xaipe, cipié pov marep ‘Hpackos: oé domatopa?. Compare 
with these Origen’s letter to Gregory, preserved in the Philocalia (c. xiii), 
Xaipe ev Oe@, xvpié pou omovdadrate kat aidcoysirare vie Tpnydpte, mapa 
’Opeyévovs: and Ep. Barn. 1 Xaipere, viot cal Ovyarépes, év dvopate Kupiou rod 
dyannoartos jpas év eipnyn®. 


2. Three of the letters which we have given above begin after the 
address with the words po pév mavrey evyoual oe vyiaiverr. With this we 
may compare 3 John 2 dyamnré, wept mavtwv evxopuai ce evododcbat kal 
dyuivev, kabds evododrai cov 7 vy7. Although no variant is recorded, it is 
difficult at first to resist the suspicion that mpd mavrwy was what the writer 
intended to say?: but on further examination of the passage it would seem 
that mepi wdvrwv is required to give the proper balance to the clause 
introduced by cafés. We have here at any rate an example of the 
appropriation of a well-known formula, with a particular modification of 
it in a spiritual direction. 

The commonest formula of this kind in the second and third centuries A.D. 
runs as follows: 

TIpo (uéev) ravreov evyoual oe vyiaivery, (Kal) TO mpooKiynpd Gov ToLw (KkaP 
éxdotny nuépav) mapa TO xupim Sapamidi:: B.P. 333, 384, 601, 625, 714, 775, 
843; and, with the addition of pera trav cay mdvrov after vyiaivew, 276; 
with the addition of kat rots avvvaois Oeois*, 385, 845. The first clause 
stands alone in 602, 815; and, with pera rév ody ravror, in 814. 

Other variations are: mp6 mavrés evxopual ce vyiaiverv, K.7.A. in 38; Kal 
dua ravroly] edyouai cai dyevaivew, x.7.d.° in 846: wpd tdv Srv éppdcbai oe 
eVxouat pera Tay ov mavT@v Kal ia TavTés oe evTvyeiv in 164. 

A different formula occurs in 811 (between 98 and 103 A.D.), Ip pev 
mavrav avaykaiov 8¢ émorodns oe domdoecOa Kal ra dBdacKarra Sodvar: and 
in 824 (dated 55/56 a.p. by Zeretelé), rpd pev mavrav dvaykaioy tynoapny 
dua ErioroAns oe domdcac Ga, 


1 Add to these Fayim Pap. 129, have letters from Theoctistus to the 








Xaipe, xUpie tymmrare: Ox. P. 112, 
Xalpors, xupla pov Zepnvia [..] mapa 
Tlerocetpios. 

2 Probably not independent of this 
is the opening of the so-called ‘ Apos- 
tolic Church Order’ (the ’Emrouy 
Spwv): Xalpere, viol cat Ovyarépes, év 
évéuatt kuplov "Inood Xpiorob. 

3 It is however to be noted that 
in B. P. 885 Schubart restores the 
text thus: Oé¢oxrioz[os *AmoX(Awrly) 
Te pirrdrw xalpev.] Tlept mrdvrolpy 
evxoual oe wyalvew.] ITlduporv.[..] 
This is a papyrus of cent. 11 from the 
Fayim. Now in nos. 884, 886 we 


same Apollonius (apparently): but in 
each the instructions begin imme- 
diately after the word xalpew. This is 
the case also in B. P. 48 written to 
Apollonius by Cylindrus and addressed 
on the verso “Amo\\wrly CEoxricrov: 
comp. letters written to him by 
Chaeremon B. P. 248, 249, 531. Itis 
probable therefore that Schubart is not 
justified in offering the supplement 
edxoual oe wytalvew. 

4 In B. P. 827 we have 76 rpockivnpud 
gov mapa To Al r~ Kacly: comp. 38 
mapa waot Tots Geots. 

5 Perhaps 6:4 avrés was intended. 


ee 





EPISTOLARY PHRASES. 


It is curious to find the phrase mpé pév mdvrov at the end of a letter! 
as we do in Ox. P. 294: mpd pév mavrwv ceavrod éemédov el Sates, 
émirkwmod* Anyntpody kat Awpiwva rov rarépa. %ppwco. This letter is 
dated 22 a.p. Similarly in Ox. P, 292 (A.D. 25) quoted above, mpd dé 


/ ¢ , ” > / \ 
mavTayv vytaivey oe evxyouat dBackayvtws Ta apiora mpdtrov. Eppwoo. 


279 


As we go back to an earlier period we find a difference in formula. An earlier 


Thus Grenfell gives us a letter of the second century B.¢. from the Thebaid type. 


which opens thus: [e?] éppwcat éppwpeba S€ kat adrot Kai kab "Adpodiola kat 
4) Ovyarnp kai 7) madioxn Kal 4 Ovyarnp avris (Greek Papyri 43). A papyrus 
of the Ptolemaic period published by Mahaffy has, ydpus trois Oeots odX?) ef 
vyaiverss vyiaiver d€ kat Awmxds: and another, cards rovis ef dyiaivers* 
vytaivw kai avros. I assume that another which he cites as deciphered by 
Mr Sayce is of the same date: here we read, xcadas roteis ef Zppwoa Kal Ta 
Aourd Got Kara yropny €oriv: eppdpcba S€ kai jpeis (Flinders Petrie Papyri, 
Cunningham Memoirs of Roy. Irish Acad. viii pp. 78—80). So in a letter 
cited by Deissmann (Bibelstudien pp. 209, 210) from Lond. Pap. 42, dated 
July 24, 172 B.0.: ef éppwpéev@ tadda Kara Adyov dravrd, einy av ws Tots Bevis 
evxopnévn SiateAS. Kal airy 8 vyiawov kai rd madiov Kal of év oik@ martes, 
gov Staravros pyeiav Trovovpevor. 


3. This last formula, preiay roveioba, is of special interest, inasmuch as 3- ‘Making 
it occurs several times in St Paul’s epistles. I have already cited an ™ention’. 


example of its use in a letter of the second century a.D., written by an 
educated hand (B. P. 632). The passages in St Paul are as follows: 


. > a“ lod lod , \ Ul € “ ‘ 
1 Thess. i 2 Evyapicrotpev tG Oe@ mavrore wept mavrav vd pyeiay 1 Thess. 


Towovpevor emt TGV mpoTevxXav Nuay ddwarei@ras pynpovevovres Vav Tod Epyou 
Ths miotews Kal Tod KOrov Tis dyamnys Kal THs Vmopovis THs eAmidos TOU Kupiov 
Hpav Incod Xpiorod éumpoobev Tov Oeod cal marpos judy, eidores, K.T.A. 
Lightfoot in commenting on this passage? (Wotes on Epistles of St 
Paul, pp. 9f.) decides to punctuate after dd:adeirras: Westcott and Hort 
punctuate before it. Another uncertainty is the construction of eumpooder 
rod Geod x.7-A., Which Lightfoot joins with the words immediately preceding 
and not with pvnpovevorres. It would seem that St Paul first used a phrase 
which was familiar in epistolary correspondence, and that then out of 
pvelay rrovobpevot, in its ordinary sense of ‘making mention’ in prayer, grew 
the fuller clause pvnpovedovres...<umpoobey rod Oeod, whether this means 
‘remembering your work,’ etc., or ‘remembering before God your work,’ etc., 
in the sense of making it the subject of direct intercession or thanksgiving. 


Rom. i 9f. Mdprus ydp pot dorw 6 Oeds...s adiadeinras pveiavy vpov Rom. i of. 


movodpa: mdvrore emt TGv mpocevxav pov Seduevos et Tas #On more evodwOnoopat 
év T@ OeAjpare Tod Geod €dOeiv mpos vpas. 

Here again the punctuation is uncertain. Lightfoot places the stop 
after zrorodpar, Westcott and Hort after pov. We may note the addition of 
Spar after prefay (comp. pvetay cov in Philem. 4): it is added in the inferior 
texts of 1 Thess. i 2 and Eph. i 16. 


1 Comp. James v 12 mpd rdvTwv 5é, 3 To the few illustrations of edxapt- 
— ddeAGol pov, py dpvdere. corey collected by Lightfoot may now 

2 Comp. Oz. P. 293 (A.D. 27), émt- be added many others from the papyri: 
oxorod 5& duds Kal mdvras robs &v olky. 0.8 B.P. 423 (cited above). 


280 


Philem. 4f. 


Eph. i 16. 


Phil. i 3. 


2 Tim. i 3. 


Prayer of 
Tantalus. 


II. Closing 
formulae. 


1. Saluta- 
tions. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Philem. 4f. Etyapioré 7G Oe@ pov ravrore pretay cov mowotpevos emt Toy 
mpocevxav pov, dkovov cov Ty aydmny...dTes 1) Kowwvia Tis TicTeds Tov — 
evepyis yévnrat, K.T.r. 3 

As Lightfoot points out, the ‘mention’ here ‘involves the idea of 
intercession on behalf of Philemon, and so introduces the émes nr? 

Eph. i 16 Ov mravopat evxapioTay vmép vay pvelay Tovovpevos emt TOV 

T™powevxX Ov pov, iva 6 Oeds K.T.A. 1 

In Phil. i 3 the same phrase i is in the Apostle’ 8 mind, but he varies his @ 
expression: Evyapioraé TH bed pov emt mdoy Th pveia Yar mayrore ev mdon 
denoes pov Urép mavrwy vay pera xyapas Thy Sénow trovovpevos K.T.d. 

In 2 Tim. i 3 the variation of phraseology is very noteworthy: Xapw 
exo TH OG, G Aatpedw amd mooydvev év KadapG cuveidnoe, ws adiadeinros 
€x@ THY Tept gov pyeiay ev Tais Senoeciv pov, vuxros Kal nuepas emimobav oe 
ideiv, weuvnuévos cov Trav Saxptor, x... The word pveia meets us but once 
more in the New Testament!: 1 Thess. iii 6 dru ¢yere pveiav judy ayabnp 
mavrore émuobovrtes nas ideiv, kabarep Kal jueis vas. 

As no clear example appears to have been cited hitherto for the use of 
pveiay moreicGa in reference to prayer, it may be interesting to quote the 
account of the prayer of Tantalus preserved in Athenaeus vii 14 (p. 281 6): 
‘O yotv thy trav ’Arpedav moumoas Kabodory adixdpevov adrov héyet mpos Tovs 
Beots kal ovvdiarpiBovra éEovaias ruxeiv mapa rod Aws airnoacbar drov 
émOupet> tov dé, mpos tas droAavcets GmAnotes Siakeipevov, Umép aitay TE 
TovTwv pvetay romoacba Kal Tov (iv Tov avrov Tpomoy Tois Oeois: ef ois 
ayavaxtycayra tov Aia Tov pev evdyny amorehéoas bia Thy vrdcxECL, K.T.D. 


II. We pass now from the opening of the letter to its close. 


1. The most striking parallel with the Pauline epistles is found in the 
exchange of salutations. There are three formulae: (1) doma{oyna, ‘I greet 
A’; (2) dowdoa, ‘I ask you to greet A. on my behalf’; (3) aomagera, ‘B. 
sends a greeting to A. through me’. 

Of the first we have but a single example in the New Testament, and 
this does not proceed from the author of. the epistle, but from his 
amanuensis. In Rom. xvi 21 in the midst of a series of salutations, of 
which sixteen are introduced by domdoac6e and four by domdfera 
(-ovra), we read: "Aomd{opat vas éyd Téprios 6 ypayas tiv émiotoAny év 
Kupig. 

After the Epistle to the Romans the richest in salutations is the Epistle 
to the Colossians: Col. iv. 10 ff. "Aomafera: tpas "Apiotapxos 6 cvvatypddwros 
pov, kat Mdpkos 6 dvewids BapvdBa, (mepi od éddBere evrodds, éay €hOn mpds 
wpas déEacGe avrér,) kai Incots 6 Neyopevos “loteros...adcmatera: tuas ’Emadppas 
6 €& tpav...domaterar Juas Aovkas 6 iarpds 6 dyamnros kai Anas: domacacbe 
rovs év Aaodixia adeAdovs cal Nuydav kal tiv kat oikov avtis éxkAnoiav. 
Many parallels to this list might be offered from the papyri, but sufficient 
have been already given in the letters above cited. 


1 Myyjyun is found only in2 Pet.i15 variant rats pwyelas for rais ypelas in 
oroviacw 5¢ kal éxdorote exew tpas Rom. xii 13, see Sanday and Headlam 
peta Thy éuny eodov Thy TovTwy pynunvy Romans, ad loc. 
movicOa. For the curious Western 











EPISTOLARY PHRASES. 281 


2, The name of an individual is often followed by a phrase which 2. The 
includes his household. Thus, B. P. 385 kai domd{owat ry pnrépa pov Ka) household 
rovs ddekghovs pov, kal Seumpevw kal rods map’ avrod: 523 domaca tip naluten. 
avwBuv cov Kali rods évoixovs mavres!, The nearest parallel to this in the 
New Testament is the greeting sent to the household of Onesiphorus, 
apparently soon after his death, 2 Tim. iv 19: "Acmaca: Ipickav kad AxvAav 
kat Tov ‘Ovnovpdpou oikoy (comp. i 16 ff). It is possible that a further 
parallel is to be traced in the Pauline phrase, 7 car’ ofkov avrijs (adray, cov) 
exkAnoia, which may be an expansion of the current phraseology, in the 
sense of ‘those of their household who are believers’: it has been perhaps 
se sacar assumed that the meaning is ‘the church that assembles in their 

ouse’. 


3. Where several persons are included in a greeting, the phrase kar’ 3. ‘By 
dvoya frequently occurs. B. P. 261 domdterat oe ‘Hpols kal of év oik@ mdvres RAaME ‘ 
kar’ dvopa: 276 domd{ouat dpas mavtes kat gvopa, Kal’ Qpryérns byas domdterat 
mavres: 615 domagovré oe of col mdvras Kar’ dvoua: 714 domdtorrat dpas Td 
maidia mavras kat’ dvopa, IIroepaios, TiBepivos, Sapariwv: comp. 449, 815, 

845, 923- 

An exact parallel is found in 3 John 15 domdgovrat ce of hidou dardtov 

Tovs didous kar dvoya. But the phrase is not used by St Paul. 


4. At the close of the Epistle to Titus we read: ’Acmdovrai ce of per’ 4. Friends. 

€uod mavres: Gomaca tors didovvras nuas év miore. To this several 
interesting parallels may be offered: B.P. 625 domaCopa riv ddeApny pov 
woAAd, kal Ta Téxva avrijs kal [,...] Kal rods Pidodvras Has mavres: 814 doma- 
Cowat *Amw@AAwapiov Kal Ovadépiov kal Téwwor [...... kat tolvs gAovvros 
npas mavres: Comp. 332. Still more noteworthy are the following, from the 
letters of Gemellus (A.D. 1oo—110): Fay. Pap. 118 domatouv tovs pidovvrés 
oe mravres Tpos GAnOlav: 119 domdfov ’Erayaboy kal rods pirodvtes nuas mpds 
aAnOiav. 


5. These letters almost always close with éppwoo (¢ppaade), or éppadaGai 5, Fare- 
oe (spas) evyoua. This formula occurs but once in the New Testament, well. 
namely at the close of the apostolic letter in Acts xv 29, ”Eppoode. In 
Acts xxiii 30”Eppego is a later addition. 

In the Pauline epistles the place of this formula is taken by his 
characteristic invocation of ‘grace.’ Jude and 2 Peter end with a doxology: 

2 and 3 John break off after the salutations: 1 Peter closes with an 
invocation of ‘peace’: James and 1 John with final admonitions, introduced 
by ’AdeAGol pov and Texvia respectively. 


III. We may go on to observe certain phrases which constantly occur ITT. Con- 
in the course of a letter, and which belong to the common stock of ordinary oe 
letter-writers. P ’ 

1. Foremost among these is caddés moujoers introducing a command or ce 8 in- 
arequest. Thus, B. P. 93 xadds rouoes diaréwpas avTn THY BeAparenijy qv aiaak sie 
xeus: 335 (Byzantine) cadds oty moujois mene (=mépyat) pou aura: 814 
Kade mroupjots, Kopoduevds pov TO emiaTdALoy, Ef mépApes MOL dvaxoatas Spaypds 


1 IIdvres and wdvras are often interchanged. 


282 


2. Of di- 
rect re- 
quest. 


3. Intro- 
ducing in- 
formation. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


(the same phrase is repeated at the end of the letter). It occurs also in 
B. P. 348, 596 (A.D. 84), 829 (a.D. 100), 830, 844 bis (A.D. 83), 848. The 
construction with the participle is by far the most common. 

In a similar sense ed roujoes is used: B. P. 248, 597 (A.D. 75), Ow. P. 
113, 294 (A.D. 22); but this is less common. 

We have an example of this formula in 3 John 6, ovs xadds rroujoers 
mporépipas a&iws tov Oeov. The past tense occurs to express gratitude in 
Phil. iv 14, wAjy Kad@s eroujoare cvvKoww@vncartés pov TH Orixrer: comp. Acts 
X 33 ov Te KaAGs émoinoas mapayevopeves. 


2. A similar formula is mapaxad@ oe, of which it may suffice to quote 
two examples in which 6:6 precedes: B. P. 164 8:6 rapaxadG ody oé, pirrare: 
Ox. P. 292 (c. A.D. 25) 5:0 wapaxade oe peta mdons duvapews eye adrov 
cuvectazévov. In B. P. 814 we have similarly otros épwra ce ody, 
pnrnp, wéepris mpos evé xr.A.: and in Ox. P. 294 (A.D. 22) epard dé ce kab 
mapakaho. 

In 2 Cor. ii 8 we have: 616 mapaxadG vpas Kupdoat cis adroy dyamnv: 
comp. Acts xxvii 34 610 mapaxad@ vas peradaBeiv trpopfs. A glance at the 
concordance will shew how common is the phrase mrapaxadG odv (Se) duds in 
the epistles of the New Testament. *Epwray is also used, though less fre- 
quently, in similar cases: e.g. 2 John 5 xal viv épwra ce, xvpia. Both verbs 
occur in Phil. iv 2 f. Evodiavy mapaxad@ kal Suvtiyny mapaxade 7d avro 
poveiy ev Kupig. val épwra kat oé, yrnove ovv{vye, ovvAapBavov adrtais, 
x.7.A. As in the papyri, we find sometimes the interjectional use of the 
phrase, and sometimes the construction with the infinitive. 


3. Just as Kadds roujoers and mapakad@ ce are circumlocutions which 
soften the introduction of an order or help to urge a request}, so the way 
is prepared for a piece of news by the prefixes ywdoxev ce OéAw Or 
yivecke. The former is by far the more frequent. Its regular use is to open 
a letter, after the introductory greeting: B. P. 261 Tewdcxew oe Oéha, eyo 
kat Ovadepia, éav ‘Hpols téxn, evxoueba édOciv mpds oe (here it stands 
outside the construction): 385 Tewaéonew oe OédXw Ore povn ii éyd: 602 
Tuwodoxw oe Germ Gre edAndrvbe mpos eve Sovxas, Aéywv dre ’Ayopacdy pov rd 
pépos Tod eAedvos: 815 Tewvdoxw oe edo, tTHyv emioroAny cov édaBa (again 
outside the construction). In 822 it is curiously disconnected: Twackw ce 
bere, pt} peAnodr@ co wept Tay ouTiKav* evpov yeopyov, k.7.A. For further 
examples see B. P. 815, 816, 824, 827, 843, 844, 845, 846. 

On the other hand, yivecke generally occurs in the body of the letter, 
though sometimes it comes at the beginning, as in B. P. 625 Teivwoxe, 
aderHé, exAnpwOnv eis ra Boveddua: and in Ox. P. 295 (A.D. 35) Tiveoke dre 
SAevkos EAOadv dde wéhevye. We find it in the Ptolemaic period in the two 
papyri published by Mahaffy (Cunningham Memoirs viii pp. 78, 80): 
yivooke O€ kal Gre x7.A., and (with a participle) yivwokce dé pe exovra 
x7. For further examples see B. P. 164, 814 bis, 845, Fay. P. 117 bis 
(A.D. 108), 

To the former phrase we have a parallel in Phil. i 12, which practically 
begins the letter, though a long thanksgiving precedes it: Twackew d€ duas 


1 In Modern Greek cas rapaxad& corresponds to our word ‘please’. 


EPISTOLARY PHRASES. 283 


Bovropat, ddeAgoi, dre ra kar’ eyé «.r.A. We may also compare Rom. i 13 
ov Odo d€ ipas ayvociv, ddedoi, dre modAdkis mpoebeuny eOciv mpds spas, 
xT.A.: this expression is a favourite with St Paul, and it opens, after a 
doxology, his second letter to the Corinthians (i 8); comp. also Oé\w 8é 
(yap) vpas eidévas in 1 Cor. xi 3, Col. ii 1. 

The latter phrase is well represented in Heb. xiii 23 Twooxere rov 
adepov jydv Tipddeov drodedvpévov. Other examples might be given, 
but they are of a didactic character and not statements of ordinary 
information. 


4. Satisfaction finds expression in the terms éydpny and Xiav éxdpny: 4. Ex- 
as in B. P. 332 éxapny xopicapévn ypdupara ore adds SueodOnre : 632 (given pressing 
above) xal émvyvovs oe éppwpérvny Aiav éxapnv. We may also compare a a = 
fragment of a letter (2nd cent. B.c.) quoted by Deissmann (Bibelstudien ae 
p. 212), Lond. P. 43: muvOavopévyn pavOdvew oe Aiyvrria ypdppata ovvexapny 
got kal épauTy Ore K.T A. 

In Phil. iv 10 we read: “Eydpny dé év Kupio peyddws re ifn more 
dveOddere TO Umep euov dpoveiv. And we have the strengthened phrase in 
2 John 4 ’Exdpnv Alay ore edpnxa ek TOV Téxvov Gov TepimatovyTav év ddnbeia, 
and in 3 John 3 "Eyapnv yap Niav épxopévwv adeAday Kat paprupotvrey cou 
TH aAnGeia. 

5. Another form of expressing satisfaction is the use of the phrase 5. Ex- 
xapis Trois Oeois or the like. Thus in B.P. 843 we have, Tivdcxew oe Oédw Pressing 
of , - Cn ae a: 3 , : yy, ~ >. thankful- 
dre xdpis Tois Geois ixapny eis AdeEavdprav: Kay. P. 124 adda trois Oeois eoriv aa 
xapis Ort oddepia early mpoAnpyis mpeiv yeyernuévn. A letter of the 
Ptolemaic period (Cunningham Mem. viii p. 78) begins: yxapis rots Bevis 
moAA? el tyaivers. In Ox. P. 113 we have: xdpw exw Oeois waocw ywadcKer 
Ort K.T.A. 

Xdpis rS Oe@ is frequent in St Paul’s letters: ydpw exo 7G Oe is found 
only in 2 Tim. i 3; comp. 1 Tim. i 12 xdpw exw 16 evduvaydcarri pe XproTe 
*Ingod. 


IV. In conclusion, a few phrases may be noted, which, though not IV. Va- 
specially connected with the epistolary style of writing, are of interest as ae . 
illustrating the language of the New Testament. bitte 

I. Ta car éné. Ox. P. 120 (4th century) aypis ay yo més rd xar’ 1, TA ar’ 
aipal droridara, et infra ta kata o¢ Stoiknooy ds mpémov otir, py TéAcov EE. 
dvarpandpev: Grenf. P. (Ptolemaic) 15 ra xa? npyas dueéal yayeiv]. 

Comp. Acts xxiv 22 Siayrdcoua ra Ka vpas, Eph. vi 11 iva O€ eldjre 
kat dpeis ra kar’ éué, Phil. i 12 rd kar’ eye paddov eis mpoxomny Tod evayyeAlov 
érjrvoev, Col. iv 7 ra kar’ cue mavra yvopices vpiv Tuxuxos. 

2. "Hon woré. B. P. 164 5d wapaxare ody oé, pirrare, #dn toré meioat 2. “Hon 
abréy rod edOeiv: 417 dmdddakov ody ceavroy dmb mavrés peredpon, iva #8 TOTE: 
more duepisvos yévn, kal Ta éua perewpidia 7}5n more TuxIY OXT: Ox. P. 237 
vii 11 (a petition) émicyew te adrov 715n more €melovTd 201, mporepov pev ws 
dvépov Katoyhs xapiv, vov dé mpopdcer vopou ovdey avr mpoonkovTos?, 

1 On the technical terms peréwpos Grenfell and Hunt, Oz. P. ii pp. 180 ff., 
and xarox} in these extracts see 142 ff. 


284 


3. Duval- 
pew dédyor. 


4- Kéupus 
exeuv. 


5. Nuxros 
kal npuépas. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


Comp. Rom. i 10 Sedpevos ef ras dn mote evodwOjoopa €v TO OeArpare 
Tod Oeod €dOciv mpos duas, Phil. iv 10 éydpny dé év Kupi@ peyddas dre 75n Tore 
dveOddere TO drép Euod ppoveiv, ef’ & Kal ehpoveire narpeioOe SE. 


3. Suvaipew Adyor, B. P.775 axpns av yévope exit kal cvvapaper Aoyov : 
Ox, P. 113 bri @eaxas aire Syrwody pot, iva cvvapwpat ait Adyov: Fay. P. 
109 ért ouvippat Adyov TH marpt Kal NeAouroypddyké pe Kal aroxnv Oéha 
AaBeiv. 

Comp. Matt. xviii 23 dvOpam@ Bacirei Os 7O€Anoev ovvapat Adyor peta TOY 
Sotray avrov: dp~apévov dé avrod ovvaipew mpoonxdn cis adt@ oetdérns 
puplov Tadavr@y, XXV 19 ovvaiper Adyoy per avTav. 


4. Kopwos exer. Par. Pap. 18 xopos xo xal rd vymioy pov Kal 
Méas1, The same phrase is cited from Arrian pict. diss. iii 10 13, drav 
6 larpos etmn Kopapos eyers (comp. ii 18 14). 

Comp. John iv 52 émidero ody tiv wpav map avrav év F Koprdrepov 
eoxev. 


5. Nu«ros kal nuépas. B. P. 246 (2/3 cent. A.D.) drt vuxros Kab uépas 
évtuyxava TG Oe@ trrép wpav. 

Comp. 1 Thess. iii 10 vukrds Kai mpépas vmepexmepisood Seopevas eis TO 
ideiv dua To mpdcwroy, 1 Tim. Vv 5 mpoopéver trais Senoecw Kat tals mpooevyais 
vuKTos kal jpépas, and many other passages. 


1 The letter is given by Deissmann, jp* ov Sixaov yap abriv AuTicOae rept 


Bibelst. p. 215, who has noted the 
parallel. He however cites it thus: 
kal rév Ur7or (sic) wov. The emendation 
is fairly obvious. 

2 In the same letter we read: xal 
rept Epusdvys wernodtw bpiv rds Gdvmos 


ovdevds* HKovoea yap St NuTetrar. Comp. 
1 Cor, xvi 10 édyv 6é 2d\On Tipddeos, 
Brérere va dpiBws yévnta pods buas... 
bh Tis ovv avroy é£ovBevjoy. In Phil. 
ii 28 we have the word d\vérepos. 








NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 285 


Note on Various Readings. 


The Greek text printed in this edition may be briefly described as in 
general representing the text of 8B. Accordingly it is hardly to be dis- The pur- 
tinguished, except at a few points, from the texts printed by Tischendorf pose of 
(ed. viii) and by Westcott and Hort. The purpose of this note is to discuss *bis note. 
certain variants of special interest: but first it may be instructive to give 
the divergences of our text from B and ®& respectively, to observe the 
main peculiarities of the Graeco-Latin codices D, and G,, and to indicate 
the relation to one another of the various recensions of the Latin Version. 


1. The divergences from B, apart from matters of orthography, are as 
follows: . 1. Diver- 


i 1 [év ’Edéo@] |] om. B*: see the special note which follows. dea 
hisses rom B, 

3 kal rratjp| om. B alone: see the commentary ad Joc. 

5 “Incod Xpicrod| xv w B: this deserves to be noted in connexion 
with the similar variant in i 1. 

13 éoppayicbnre| eoppay.obn B: but note that this word ends a line. 

15 dyarnv| om. B: see the special note. 

17 den] do B. 

18 duov] om. B. 

20 émovpavios] ovpavors B: supported by 71 213, some codices of the 
Sahidic, Hil Victorin. 

21 dpxijs kat eEovaias| e€ovoras Kat apxns B alone. 

ii 1 Tois mapamr@pacw kat rais duaprias]| Tos mapanT@pacw kat Tats eT 

Ovpsas B alone. 

5 Tols maparrépacw] ev rows naparr@pacw Kat Tavs ertOvpiats B alone: 
the substitution of éméupias in v. 1 followed by its insertion in 
this verse is remarkable. 

ovvetworoincev] +ev B: probably by dittography, but there is some 
considerable support for the insertion. 
13 Tov xpiorov| om. rou B alone. 
22 beov| xv B alone. 
iii 3 dre] om. B. 

5 dmoordédos] om. B Ambrst only. 

9 wrica] +avras B : see the special note. 

19 mAnpobire eis wav] mAnpoby wav B 17 73 116. [17 adds ers vpas 
after tov Oeov teste Tregell.] 
iv 4 xaOds cai] om. xa B. 

6 kat év raow] om. cat B 32 Victorin. 

7 nov) vpov B. : 

) xapxs] om. 7 B, with D, and other authorities; but it may have 
fallen out after ¢506n. 

9 KxaréBn] + mporoy B: see the special note. 


286 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


iv 16 avrod] eavrov, with considerable support. 


23 T@ mvevpare] pr. ev B alone (except for the uncertain testimony of 
a version). 
24 évdvcacba] evdvcacbe B*, with 8 and some others; but probably 
it is an itacism. 
32 yiverbe dé] om. de B, with considerable support: moreover D.*G, 
read ovr. 
dpiv] nuw B: see the special note, 
17 Tov kupiov] +npov B alone. 
19 Wadpois| pr. ev B. 
mvevpartixais] om. B. On this and the preceding variant see the 
special note. 
20 “Incod Xpicrov] xv w B alone. 
23 oti kepadz] Kkepady eorw B. 
24 adda os| om. ws B. 
31 Tov marépa kal thy pntépal warepa kat pytepa B, with D.*G,. 
32 eis TH éexkAnoiay] om. es B. 
I év kupio] om. B, with D,.*G;. 
2 éoriv| om. B, with 46. 
7 avOporos| avOpore B, with slight support. 
10 évdvvapovabe] Suvvapovebe B, with 17 and Origen, cat. in com- 
mentary. 
12 piv] vay B, with D,*G, etc. 
16 ra mervpopéva] om. ra B, with D,*G3. 
19 Tov evayyeAiov] om. B, with G, Victorin. 
20 €v avt@] avro B alone. 


The divergences from & are as follows: 
I Xpiorod "Incoti w Xv N: see the special note. 
[év "Edéow] ] om. 8*: see special note. 
3 Tov Kupiov nav] Tov Ku Kat cwTnpos nov N* alone. 
6 evAoynoas nas] Om. nuas & alone. 
7 €xouev| eoxoper X*, with G,* and some support from versions. 
14 6 éorwv| os eorw &, with D, etc. 
tis Soéns| om. tTys &, with 17 35. 
15 adyarnv] om. &: see the special note. 
18 ris doEns tis KAnpovopias] THs KAnpovojuas rns doéns & alone. 


20 évypynkev] evnpynoev &, with most authorities against AB. 


4 év édéer] om. ev X* alone. 
7 &* (alone) omits this verse through homoeoteleuton. 

10 avrov| 63 X* alone. 

18 80 avrod] +01 audorepor ev em N* alone, per errorem, d0 avrov 
having ended the column and page. It would seem therefore 
that the length of the line in the archetype is represented by 
EXOMENTHNTTPOCAPWFrHN, Which was at first missed. 

20 avrov Xpicrov "Incod| rov xu X*. 


iii I rod Xpiorod "Incov| om. Incov X*, with D,*G, etc. 


9 &vT@ be6] tw 64 N*,. This was Marcion’s reading (Tert. c. Mare. 
Vv 18). 





NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS, 287 


iii Il €vy TO Xpior “Inood] om. ro &*, with D, ete. 
18 twos kat Bados] Babos xa vos &, with A ete. 
iv I €y Kupia] ev xo &, with aeth. 
8 xal €S@xev] om. xat X*, with many authorities. 
24 évdvcacGa| evdvcacbe &, with B* and others, 
Stxavoovvy Kal dovdrnti] oovornte Kat Sixatcoovvy N* alone: but 
Ambrst has in uerttate et tustitia. 
25 dAnOevav exactos] exacros adnOevav X* alone. 
pera Tov mAnciov| mpos rov mAnowor N* alone: Lucifer has ad proxi- 
mum. 
28 xepolv] pr wdiats 8*, with AD,G, etc.: see the special note. 
xn] exnrac 8* alone: comp. Clem®! iva zynre. 
V 2 vpadv] nov ®: see the special note, 
mpooopay kal Gvciay| Ovorav kat mpooopar & alone. 
4 kai pwpodoyia] 7 pwporoya N*, with AD,*G, ete. 
6 d:a radra yap] om. yap &* alone. 
17 O€Anpua] pporvnpa N* alone. 
20 Tov kupiov nuov] om. nuov & alone. 
22 ai yuvaixes| + umotaccecOwcar & : see the special note. 
23 avrds cwrtip| avtos o cwrnp &*, with A 17 etc. 
27 avros éavt@| avros avrw X* alone. 
7] TL Tay ToLovT@Y| OM. 7 TL N* alone. 
28 ddeidovor Kal oi dvdpes| om. kat N ete. 
owpata| rexva X* alone. 
29 THv éavrov oapka| THY capka avrov &* alone. 
31 mpos THy yuvaika avrov| Ty yuvacxe N*: see the special note. 
Vi 3 wa—yijs| bis scriptum &* alone. 
5 amddrnte ths Kkapdias| om. tns & etc. 
8 dre exacros éay Tt motnon| ott cay moinon exaoTos & alone. 
9 kal avrav] kau eavrwy N* alone: see the special note. 
ovpavois] ovpavyw &, with some others. 
10 év xupio] ev To k@ N*, with gr. 
19 iva pot 5067] wa d00n por 8* alone. 
20 év avT@ mappnoidowpa] rappyotac@pat ev avrw & alone. 
21 eldjre Kal vpeis] Kae vpers coyre N, with many others. 
motos Siaxovos] om. duaxovos N* alone. 


3. Ifthe combination XB represents a line of textual tradition which 3: The 
is of great importance here as elsewhere in the New Testament, on the ar ctigg 
ground that its readings are usually justified by internal considerations, oogices, 
scarcely less interest attaches to another line of tradition commonly spoken 
of as the ‘ Western text,’ because it is mainly attested for us by two Graeco- 

Latin codices D, and G;. D, is Codex Claromontanus (cent. vi), and is 
thus indicated to distinguish it from D, Codea Bezae of the Gospels and 
Acts. Gis Codex Boernerianus (cent. ix), and was once part of the same 


codex as A (Sangallensis) of the Gospels'. 


1 EK, isa copy of D,, and F, is pro- text is concerned. Accordingly I have 
bably a copy of G, so far as its Greek not cited the evidence of E,F',. 


288 


Their 
textual 
history. 
Latinisa- 
tion. 


Interpre- 
tative 
changes. 


Variants 


of interest 
in D, or G3. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


At the beginning of the history of each of these codices a Greek text 
and an Old Latin text have been brought together in the same volume, and 
a process of assimilation has begun, partly of the Greek to the Latin and 
partly also of the Latin to the Greek. If we had the immediate parent of 
either of these codices we should probably find corrections of this nature 
introduced in the margin or in the text itself. Thus it may have been in 
the immediate ancestor of G, that in Eph. iv 15 a\nOevorres d¢ was changed 
into dd7jGevav dé rovodvres, because the corresponding Latin was ueritatem 
autem facientes. The like process had already been taking place in the 
codex from which D, and G, are ultimately descended. For most of the 
obvious Latinisations are common to them both. Thus in ii 11 vo ris 
Aeyouevns mepiTopis ev capt xeporonrov was rightly rendered ab ea quae 
dicitur circumcisio in carne manufacta: but an ignorant scribe took 
manufacta as the ablative agreeing with carne, and accordingly we find in 
D,G, the strange reading ¢v capxt xeporomre. Another example is ii 20, 
where the true reading is dxpoyaiov. The Latin rendering for ‘corner 
stone’ was angularis lapis (summus angularis lapis, Jerome): hence we 
find in D,G, that Aidov is added after dxpoywnaiov. 

Besides this process, by which the Greek texts of these codices have 
been considerably affected in detail, we may distinguish another element of 
modification which may be called the interpretative element. Thus in ii 5, 
in the parenthetical sentence yadpiri éore ceowopéevor, we find prefixed to 
xaprrt the relative pronoun ov, which brings it into the construction of the 
main sentence: ov r7 xdpirt D,, 0d yapire G,. As cuius is found at this 
point in the Old Latin, it is possible that the inserted pronoun is due to 
the Latin translator, and has subsequently passed over to the Greek text. 
The similar clause in ii 8, ry yap xapiri éore ceowopévn, is changed in D, 
into rH yap adrod xadpitt ceowopevor €opév. The change to the first person 
is due to the éd’ nuas of the previous verse, and to the éopey of v. 10: the 
e€ dav of v. 8 had also passed into é€ jar, probably at an earlier stage, 
for it has a wider attestation. Another interesting example is the comple- 
tion of the broken sentence in iii 1 by the addition in D, of rpeoBevo after 
tov €Ovev: a small group of cursives add xexavyjpa: from a similar motive. 
More serious is the change in iii 21, where in the true text glory is ascribed 
to God év r9 éxkAnoig Kai €v XptorS “Incod. The words in this order appeared 
so startling that in one group of mss (KLP) cai was dropped, so as to give 
the sense ‘in the Church by Christ Jesus’ (A.V.). In D,*G, the order is 
boldly reversed (€v xv tv xal tH éxkAnoia); and they are supported by Am- 
brosiaster and Victorinus. It is probable that to this class we should assign . 
the addition of vid adrod after év TG jyarnuévm in i 6: but it is to be noted 
that this reading has a wide attestation and is undoubtedly very early 
(D,*G, 8¢ vg~44 Victorin Ambrst Pelag etc.: also Ephraim in his com- 
mentary, preserved in Armenian, has ‘in His Son’). 


Other interesting readings belonging to one or both of these codices are: 
ii 15 xarapyjoas| xarapricas D,* alone. 
iii 12 év wemobnoe| ev rw ehevdepwOnva D,* alone (not unconnected with 
the rendering of zappyoiav by libertatem Victorin Ambrst). 
20 vmep mavTa Totnoa| OM. vrep D.G,, with vg Ambrst etc. 


NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 289 
iv 16 kar’ évépyecavy] om. G;, with d, Iren inf (Mass, p. 2 i 
(Hartel p. 200) Victorin jee (cod). i tc 
19 danAynxéres] arndmixores D,, abndmixores G,, with vg (desperantes) 
goth arm aeth ete. 
29 tis xpetas] rns murrews D.*G;: see the special note. 
V 14 emipaicer cot 6 xpiords] erupavcers rov xv D,*: see the special note. 


In conclusion certain readings may be noted in which one or other of Variants 
these codices has somewhat unexpected support from one of the great uncials, with unex- 


i I Xpicrod "Incod] Dz, with B and a few other authorities. eee 
7 zxoper] exxouer D,*, with 8* (comp. B in Col. i 14). sid 
II ékAnpadOnper] exAnOnuev DG, with A: not unconnected perhaps is 
the rendering sorte wocati sumus of vg. 
V 31 om. rév et r7v D.*G,, with B only. 
vi I om. évxvpio D,*G;, with B Clem Alex (P. 308) Tert (c. Mare. v 18) 
Cyprian (Testim. iii 70) Ambrst (cod). 
16 ra werupwpéva] om. ra D,* Gs, with B. 
19 OM. Tov evayyeAiov G;, with B Tert (c. Mare. v 18) Victorin. 
It is clear from this list that B at any rate has admitted a ‘ Western’ 
element in this epistle as in others. 


4. Parallel with the Latinisation of the Greek texts of D, and G, has 4. The 
been the process of correcting the Latin texts (d, and g,) to conform them Oia Latins 
to the Greek. In consequence of this correction we cannot entirely rely on ri, = 
these texts as representing a definite stage of the Old Latin Version, unless ** 

we can support their testimony from other quarters. Yet the remarkable 
agreement between d, and the text of Lucifer in the passage examined 

below is somewhat reassuring. 

The history of the Old Latin of St Paul’s Epistles needs a fuller investi- History of 
gation than it has yet received. To what extent it was revised by St Jerome the Old 
is still obscure. Some useful remarks upon it will be found in the article ie 
in Hastings’s Bible Dictionary (Latin Versions, the Old) by Dr H. A. A. 
Kennedy; and also in Sanday and Headlam, Romans, Introd. § 7 (2) and 
notes on V 3—5, viii 36. 

The relation of the chief Latin recensions may be judged to some extent Latin 
by a concrete example. For Eph. vi 12 ff. we are fortunate in having a con- sy of 
tinuous quotation in Cyprian Testim. iii 117 (comp. Zp. lviii 8) and also in sty ff. " 
Lucifer of Cagliari (Hartel p. 296). 





CYPRIAN 

non est nobis conluc- 
tatio aduersus carnem et 
sanguinem, sed aduersus 
potestates et principes 
huius mundi et harum 


tenebrarum, aduersus 
spiritalia nequitiae in 
caelestibus}, 


1 T have followed the true text of 
Cyprian, which is to be found in Har- 
Hartel’s text gives 


tel’s apparatus. 
EPHES.? 


LUCIFER 

non est wobis conluc- 
tatio aduersus carnem et 
sanguinem, sed contra 
potestates, contra huius 
mundi rectores tenebra- 
rum harum, contra spiri- 
talia nequitiae in cae- 
lestibus. 


COD. AMIATINUS 

non est nobis conluc- 
tatio aduersus carnem et 
sanguinem, sed aduersus 
principes et potestates, 
aduersus mundi rectores 
tenebrarum harum, con- 
tra spiritalia nequitiae 
in caelestibus, 


‘uobis’, but ‘nobis’ is found in the 
better mss and in Ep. lviii 8. 


19 


290 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


We may note at the outset that Lucifer’s text at this point is found — 


word for word in Codex Claromontanus (d,), the only difference being that 
there we have the order ‘sanguinem et carnem’, which is probably the 
result of correction by the Greek of the codex. 


nobis. Cyprian and the Vulgate give the true reading. But ‘uobis’is © 


read by g; m (the Speculum, a Spanish text), Priscillian and Ambrosiaster. 
Tertullian, however, Hilary and Ambrose have ‘nobis’, The Greek evi- 
dence is remarkable from the fact that B deserts its usual company. ‘“Hyiv 
is found in SAD,°KLP 17 etc., supported by Clement and Origen and the 
Greek writers generally : also by boh arm syr(hkl). ‘Yyiy is found in BD,* 
G, and some cursives: besides the Latin support already cited, it is sup- 
ported by the Gothic and the Aethiopic versions, and by the Syriac Peshito, 
which doubtless gives us here the Old Syriac reading, as we gather from 
Ephraim’s Commentary. 

It is quite possible that the variation has arisen independently in 
different quarters, for in Greek it is among the commonest confusions. It 
serves however admirably as an illustration of the grouping of our Latin 
authorities. 

Sed aduersus (or contra) potestates. A single clause seems in the oldest 
Latin to have represented mpés ras dpyads, mpos tas é£ovcias (or kat éEovatas) 
of the Greek text. It may be that principes was being consciously reserved 
to be used in the following clause (pds rovs xoopoxpdropas): for there is no 
Greek evidence for the omission of mpos ras dpyds. Yet d.m Lucif Hil 
(ed. Vienn. p. 489) have the single clause although they use ‘rectores’ (Hil 
mundi potentes) in the later clause. It is noteworthy that d, is not in this 
case brought into conformity with the Greek (mpos ras dpyas cat é€ovcias) 
of D,. 

On the renderings of xocyoxparopas see further in the commentary ad 
loc. 


CYPRIAN 


a a. 


propter hoc induite 
tota arma, ut possitis 
resistere in die nequis- 
simo, ut cum omnia per- 
feceritis stetis adcincti 
lumbos uestros in ueri- 
tate. 


LUCIFER 

propterea accipite ar- 
ma dei, ut possitis resis- 
tere in die malo, in 
omnibus perfecti stare, 
praecincti lumbos ues- 
tros in ueritate. 


COD. AMIATINUS 
propterea accipite ar- 
ma dei, ut possitis resis- 
tere in die malo et omni- 
bus perfecti stare, state 
ergo succincti lumbos 
uestros in ueritate, 


Lucifer agrees with d,, except that the latter has ‘omnibus operis’ in 
place of ‘in omnibus perfecti’, and ‘ stetis’ for ‘stare’. 


induite. 


So m ‘induite uos’. 


tota arma. The omission of ‘dei’ by the best mss of the Testimonia 
is confirmed by Zp. lviii 8. It is interesting to note in connexion with 
‘tota arma’ that Jerome ad loc. says ‘omnia arma...: hoc enim sonat 


mavorAia, non ut in Latino simpliciter arma translata sunt’. 


Yet Cod. 


Amiat. gives us ‘arma’, and the Clementine Vulgate ‘armaturam’. 


nequisstmo, 
sions. 


In v. 16 ‘nequissimi’ retains its place in the later recen- 


cum omnia perfeceritis, It is strange that this excellent rendering was 
not maintained : see the commentary ad Joc. 


NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS, 


ut...stetis accincti. This corresponds to the reading of D,*G 


for orhva: orfre ovv. 


3 OTHTE 


In m we find ‘estote’, or according to some mss 


‘stare, estote’, The Vulgate shews correction by a better Greek text, 


CYPRIAN 

induentes loricam ius- 
titiae et calciati pedes in 
praeparatione euangelii 
pacis, in omnibus adsu- 
mentes scutum fidei, in 
quo possitis omnia ignita 
jacula nequissimi extin- 
guere, et galeam salutis 
et gladium spiritus, qui 
est sermo dei. 


LUCIFER 
induentes loricam ius- 
titiae et calciati pedes in 
praeparatione euangelii 
pacis, in omnibus adsu- 
mentes scutum fidei, in 
quo possitis omniaiacula 
nequissimi candentia ex- 
stinguere, et galeam sa- 
lutis et gladium spiritus, 
quod est uerbum dei. 


COD. AMIATINUS 

et induti lorica ius- 
titiae et calciati pedes in 
praeparatione euangelii 
pacis, in omnibus swmen- 
tes scutum fidei, in quo 
possitis omnia tela ne- 
quissimi ignea extin- 
guere; et galeam salutis 
adsumite et gladium spi- 





ritus, quod est uerbum 
dei. 


Lucifer agrees with d,, except that the latter has ‘ salutaris’ for ‘salutis’ 
(comp. Tert. c. Mare. iii 14). 

ignita, Tertullian in an allusion (wé supra) has ‘omnia diaboli ignita 
tela’: ‘candentia’ is found in m. 

adsumite: supplied in the Vulgate, to correspond with dé£acée which 
is omitted by D,*G,. 

sermo : characteristic of the Cyprianic text: comp. Tert. ué supra, 


The text of Vigilius Tapsensis (Africa, c. 484) is of sufficient interest to 
be given in full (de trin. xii, Chifflet, 1664, p. 313): 

‘Propterea suscipite tota arma dei, ut possitis resistere in die maligno; 
et cum omnia perfeceritis state cincti lumbos in ueritate, et calciate (? cal- 
ciati) pedes in praeparatione euangelii pacis: super haec omnia acciptentes 
scutum fidei, et galeam salutaris accipite, et gladium spiritus, quod est 
uerbum dei’. 

Comp. c. Varimadum iii 24, p. 457: ‘In omnibus adsumentes scutum 
fidei, in quo possitis omnia iacula nequissimi candentia exstinguere, et 
galeam salutis et gladium spiritus, quod est uerbum dei’. This agrees with 
Lucifer. The variety of text is worth noting in connexion with the ques- 
‘tion of the authorship of these treatises!. 


291 


The following readings deserve attention either for their own importance Special 


or as throwing light on the history of the text. The authorities cited are 
selected as a rule from the apparatus of Tischendorf or Tregelles, and the 
citations have been to a large extent verified, and sometimes corrected and 
amplified. 


i I ypictoY incof. 


readings 
ofinterest. 


Xpisrod "Incod BD,P 17 syr (hkl) boh vg (am) Or’ Ambrst Pele ; i 1 Xpwrod 


"Ingod Xpiorod NAG,KL ete. syr (pesh) arm vg (futal) Eph (arm) Victorin. 


Athanasius extant only in this Latin 
version’, See also the note on the 
text of vi 16, below, p. 303. 


1 On the authorship of the de trini- 
tate see Journ. of Th. St. i 126 ff., 
592 ff.: it is suggested that ‘Book xii 
‘is probably a genuine work of St 


19—2 


292 


The testi- 
mony of B. 


i1t[& 
Ed¢ésy]. 


1. Notin 
Origen’s 
text. 


Evidence 
of Basil. 


2. Evi- 
dence of 
mss 8B 67. 


Fresh 
evidence 
from Mt 
Athos. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


It is not easy to decide between these readings. The full title ‘our 
Lord Jesus Christ’ would help to stereotype the order ‘Jesus Christ’, This 
order in itself is perhaps the more natural, especially in Syriac, ‘Jesus the 
Messiah’: the Peshito has it even in the last words of this verse. A copyist 
would be more likely to change Xpsords “Incods into “Incots Xpiords than 
vice versa. 

B persistently has Xpicrod “Incod in the openings of the Epistles: it is 
often deserted by 8, and once by all uncials. This fact may suggest the 
possibility of a revision on principle. In this particular place it appears as 
if the scribe of B began to write ty xy, but corrected himself in time. Yet 
the support which B here has makes it hazardous to depart from it. It 
is otherwise in v. 5, where B stands alone in giving the same. reversal. 
of order. 


ii toic 4rfoic toic o¥cin [én "Edécq]. 


The case for the omission of ¢v "E¢éo@ has been so clearly stated by 
recent critics!, that it will suffice to present the main evidence in the 
briefest form, to call attention to a recent addition to it, and to set aside 
some supposed evidence which breaks down upon examination. 


1. The words were not in the text used by Origen [+ A.D. 253]. This is 
conclusively shewn by his endeavour to explain rois odow as an independent 
phrase. In Cramer’s Catena ad Joc. we read: 

’Opryévns 8€ hyow "Ent povov "Edeciav evpopey keipevov Td TOTC Arfoic 
Toic OYCI: Kal (yrovper, ei pw) mapéAKer mpockeipevoy Te TOTC Affoic ToOTC 
eS a Pp ale ’ ” > > a4 2 a? , D 
oycr’, ri Svvarat onpaivery. dpa ovv ei py, domep ev TO EEdS@ Svopa how 
éavrov 6 xpnpatifoy Mace? rd *QN, otras of peréxovres Tod bvros yivovrat 
évres, KaAdovpevot olovet éx Tod pi) elva eis TO etvaer K.T.A2 

This comment is no doubt referred to by St Basil [+ 4.p. 379] in the 
following extract, at the close of which he declares that the words év 
’Edéo@ were wanting in the older copies in his own day: 

"AAAG kal tols “Edeciots emioréh\Awr, ds ynoios jropévois TO dvti OV 
ervyvacews, dvtas avrovs idiafévras wvdpacer, eimav: Toic Arfoic Toic 
oYci kal trictoic €N Xpict@ “Incof. otra yap kal of mpd nyav mapa- 
dedciKacr, Kal Nuets €v Tois mahaois Tay avtvypaper evipnxapey (Basil. contra 


Eunom. ii 19). 


2. The words év ’Ef¢éow were originally absent from & and B; and 
they are marked for omission by the corrector of the cursive 67 in the 
Imperial Library at Vienna (cod. gr. theol. 302). 

An interesting addition to the documentary evidence for the omission 
has been made by E. von der Goltz, who has published an account of 


1 See Lightfoot Biblical Essays 
pp- 377 ff., Westcott and Hort Intro- 
duction to N.T., ‘ Notes on select read- 
ings’ ad.loc., Hort Prolegg. to Romans 
and Ephesians pp. 86ff., T. K. Abbott 
Ephesians pp. iff. 

2 Perhaps we should read 7 tTo?c 


Arfoic 7d Toic ofc. 

3 Origen’s comment is reproduced 
in an obscure way by St Jerome, who 
probably was unaware of any omission 
in the text, and therefore failed to 
understand the drift of the explana-- 
tion. 


NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS, 293 
a remarkable cursive of the tenth or eleventh century in the Laura on 

Mt Athos! This ms (cod. 184) contains the Acts and Catholic Epistles, Cod. Laur. 
as well as the Pauline Epistles, and once contained also the Apocalypse. 184. 

The scribe declares that he copied it from a very old codex, the text of 

which agreed so closely with that found in the commentaries or homilies 

of Origen that he concluded that it was compiled out of those books. The 

margin contains many quotations from works of Origen, which appear to 

have stood in the margin of the ancient copy. At the end of the Epistle 

to the Ephesians is the following note?: cb dré rav els THY mpos ehecious 
pepopévav efnyntixkav Topev dyraveyvocoy (leg. dvraveyvdcbn) fj émorodt, 

The scribe’s error shews that this note was copied from an uncial original, 

-on having been read for -6H. This ms omits év "E¢éoo, and makes no 
comment on the omission. Thus we have positive evidence to confirm the 
conclusion that the words were absent from the text of Origen. 


3. The only other trace of the omission of the words is found in the 3. Mar- 
fact that Marcion included our epistle in his edition of the Pauline Epistles cion. 
under the title ‘to tum Laopiceans’. This he could hardly have done if 
the words é¢v ’Edéo@ had stood in the salutation. 


4. None of the versions gives any support to the omission. The only 4. Ver- 
two about which a doubt could be raised are the Old Syriac and the Latin. sions. 

(1) The Old Syriac can often be conjecturally restored from the com- Old 
mentary of Ephraim, which is preserved in an Armenian translation. It is Syriac : 
true that Ephraim does not mention the words ‘in Ephesus’. His brief 
comment is: ‘Zo the saints and the faithful; that is, to the baptized 
and the catechumens’. But that no conclusion can be drawn from this no evi- 
js at once seen when we compare with it the corresponding comment on maura e 
Col. i1: ‘Zo the saints, he says, and the faithful: the baptized he calls Ephraim. 
saints, and the catechumens he names faithful’: yet no one would argue 
from this that the words ‘at Colossae’ were absent from his text. 

(2) Lightfoot holds that there are indications in early Latin commen- Latin: 
taries that the texts used by their writers either did not contain the word supposed 
Ephesi, or contained it in an unusual position which suggests that it was evidence 
a later interpolation. Hort makes no reference to evidence to be derived 
from this source, and it may perhaps be assumed that he was not satisfied 
that a valid argument could be constructed. But as Dr Abbott has recently 
repeated Lightfoot’s suggestions, it is necessary that the passages in question 
should be examined in detail. 

i. Vuiororinvs, as printed in Mai Scripiorum veterum nova collectio —_ 

iii $7, has the following comment: ‘Sed haec cum dicit sanctis qui sunt ae One 
jfidelibus Ephesi, quid adiungitur? in Christo Iesu’. I confess that I do ; 
not understand how Lightfoot could render this, ‘ But when he says these 

words “To the saints who are the faithful of Ephesus,” what does he add? 

“In Christ Jesus”’ For such a rendering would require Jideles, not Jide- 

libus?, If the text be sound, gui sunt can only be taken in Origen’s 


1 Hine textkritische Arbeit u.s, w. 2 1.c. p. 78. ; F 
Texte u. Untersuch, neue Folge ii 4 3 We are warned that this essay is 
{1899). ‘ printed from Lecture-Notes’ (p. 376). 


294, 


from 
Ambrosi- 
aster 5 


from 
Sedulius 
Scotus. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


sense—‘the saints who ARrz,’—and jidelibus must stand in apposition to 
sanctis. But there is no trace of such an interpretation in Victorinus: 
and as he himself explicitly cites the passage in the usual manner lower 
down, we may well conclude that the words in this place have suffered in 
the process of transcription. Even if we conjecturally substitute jideles 
for jidelibus, and render, ‘to the saints who are faithful in Ephesus’, we 
cannot say that Victorinus is giving us a direct citation as contrasted with 
a mere allusion. For haec in the sentence before us does not refer to the 
words sanctis, etc. but to the preceding phrase Paulus apostolus Iesu 
Christi per voluntatem dei, which Victorinus has just told us were also 
used in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. So that the passage runs: 
‘But when he says these (same) words to the saints who are faithful at 
Ephesus, what is added? Zn Christ Jesus’, The position of Ephesi is thus 
accounted for by the emphasis thrown upon it for the purpose of contrast 
with the Corinthian Church. It seems clear then that no evidence of a 
variation of reading can be drawn from Victorinus. 

ii. Lightfoot suggests that AMBROSIASTER may not have had EHphesi in 
his text: (1) because ‘the commentary ignores the word Ephesi altogether’ : 
(2) because his note suggests that he, or an earlier writer whose note he 
adopts, had in his mind rois dytous rots odaw Kal miorois, which he regarded 
as meaning ‘the saints who are also faithful’. 

But, in regard to (1), a similar omission of the locality occurs in the 
corresponding notes on the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Colossians: 
and generally the author’s comments on corresponding phrases are directed 
to bringing out the meaning of the word ‘saints’ and its connexion with 
‘Christ Jesus’, Moreover the text, as given in the Vetus Editio of Ambrose, 
after citing v. 1 runs thus: 


Solito more scribit: Apostolum enim se esse Christi Jesu dei uoluntate 
testatur: Sanctis et fidelibus in Christo Jesu qui sunt Ephesi. Non solum 
fidelibus scribit: sed et sanctis: ut tunc uere fideles sint si fuerint sancti in 
Christo Jesu. Bona enim uita tunc prodest ac creditur sancta si sub nomine 
Christi habeatur: alioquin contaminatio erit; quia ad iniuriam proficit crea- 
toris. 

The Benedictine edition (and hence Migne, from which Lightfoot. 
quotes) omits the words Sanctis et fidelibus in Christo Jesu qui sunt 
Ephesi. In the quoted text of v. 1 as given in both editions the 
corresponding words are as follows: Sanctis omnibus qui sunt Ephesi, 
et fidelibus in Christo Jesu. The variation is noteworthy. On internal 
grounds it would seem to belong to the commentator; but in that case he 
does not ignore the word Ephesi. 

With regard to (2), we should be more ready to admit the cogency 
of the argument if the comment ran: non solum sanctis scribit, sed 
et fidelibus. 

iii. SxpuxIus Scorvs, a compiler of the eighth or ninth century, writes. 
(Migne, P. L. ciii 795) : 


Sanctis. Non omnibus Ephesiis, sed his quicreduntin Christo. Et jfidelibus. 
Omnes sancti fideles sunt, non omnes fideles sancti....... Qui sunt in Christo 
Iesu. Plures fideles sunt, sed non in Christo, etc. 





NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 295 


Lightfoot lays no stress on the omission of Ephest. ‘But’, he says, ‘the 
position of gui sunt is striking. It would seem as though some transcriber, 
finding the reading sanctis qui sunt et fidelibus in Christo Jesu in his 
copy and stumbling at the order, had transposed the words so as to read 
sanctis et fidelibus qui sunt in Christo Jesu. This altered reading may 
have been before Sedulius, or some earlier writer whom he copies’. 

Fortunately we have some information as to the source which Sedulius A parallel 
was drawing from at this point. The Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, 2 ‘Prima- 
which is falsely attributed to Primasius, may or may not be earlier than me 
the work of Sedulius. At any rate the following passage from it is worth 
quoting as a parallel?: 

Sanctis omnibus qui sunt Ephesi. Omnis sanctus fidelis, non omnis fidelis 
sanctus. Baptizatis fidelibus siue fideliter seruantibus sanctitatem: catechu- 


menis qui habent fidem, quia credunt, sed non habent sanctitatem. Lt jfidelibus 
in Christo Iesu. Qui licitis utuntur. Gratia etc. 


The Commentary of Pelagius, printed in Vallarsi’s edition of St Jerome The 
(xi, pars iii), seems to lie behind both the preceding extracts. It runs source 


° robably 
thus : ; . is Pela- 
Omnibus sanctis, Omnes sancti fideles, non omnes fideles sancti. Quia gius, 


possunt etiam catechumeni ex eo quod Christo credunt fideles dici: non tamen 

sancti sunt, quia non per baptismum sanctificati. Siue sic intelligendum, quod 

seribat fideliter seruantibus gratiam sanctitatis. Qut sunt Ephesi, et fidelibus who read 
in Christo Iesu. Non omnibus Ephesiis, sed his qui credunt in Christo. ‘Ephesi’. 
Gratia etc. 


iis Kat THN [drdttHN] eic TANTAC Toye Arfoyc. 


We must consider this passage in connexion with the parallels to irs xalriy 
be found in the two other epistles which were carried by the same [a-ydrny]. 
messenger. ie 

i. Eph. i 15 deotoas thy ka vpas miorw év t@ Kupio “Incod cal Thy 
[dyamrnv] eis mavras Tovs ayiovs. ; 

“ Lover | a 

ii. Col. i 4 dxodoavres thy miotw tpav ev Xpior@ Inoov kal thy dyamny 

[nv exere] eis mavras rods dyious. sa 
/ 

iii. Philem. 5 dxovoy cov thy dyanny kal Thy miotTw ny exes els [v. 0. 

mpos] Tov KUptov "Incoby Kal eis mavras Tous ayious. 


In (i) we have the following readings : Eph. i 15. 
(1) Kat rip eis ravtas rods ayious N*ABP 17 Ort!29 Cyrttin 3 Aug 
(de praed. ss. XiX 39). 
(2) Kal riy dydmnp els mr. T. a. D,*G3. 
(3) Kal ray ayarny thy els mT. a. X°D.°KL al pler Chrys Thdrt 
Dam al. . 
The Latin, Syriac, Bohairic and Gothic Versions may be claimed 


itio pri ibe i i iter: it is 
1 In the editio princeps (1537) P- 333+ ascribe it to a Gallic writer : 
On this Commentary see Haussleiter closely related to the Commentary of 
in Zahn’s Forschungen zur Geschichte Remigius. 
d. NTlichen Kanons iv 24 ff. He would 


296 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


either for (2) or for (3); and so also Victorin>*® Ambrst Aug (Zp. 
cexvii 28) al. 


(4) Kal rip eis rdvras rods aylous dydmnv 6 cursives, the Catena text 
and Cyrich 83, 


Col. i 4. In (ii) B stands alone in omitting 4» ¢yere without giving any substitute. 
It thus presents a reading difficult at first sight from the grammarian’s 
point of view, but quite in accord with Pauline usage. The position of év 
Xpior “Incod after wiorw in the same verse is a parallel; and other 
examples are given in the note on Eph. iis. As the article was likely 
to be inserted by scribes, we may claim the reading of D.°KL (rj dyamnv 
Tv) a8 indirectly supporting B; and the insertion of fy éyere may be 
regarded as another way of meeting the difficulty, and as perhaps suggested 
by 4v yess in iii. 

Philem. 5. In (iii) scribes who took jv éxecs as exclusively referring to tiv miotiv 
found a difficulty in the phrase miorw yew eis mavtas tods ayiovs, and 
accordingly D, with many cursives, the Syriac, Armenian and Aethiopic 
Versions, invert the order and read ri mictw kai tiv ayarnv. But the 
difficulty is really non-existent; for rjv dydmyy Kal tiv Tiotrw are alike 
included in jy ¢yes, and the order offers an example of the grammatical 
figure called chiasmus: see Lightfoot ad loc. 

Internal We now return to consider the readings of (i).. If external authority be 

evidence alone considered, we cannot refuse to accept (1). But internal evidence is 

ahi strongly adverse to it. We cannot give wiors the meaning of ‘loyalty’ or 
oat ‘trustworthiness’, in view of the parallels in the other epistles: and we 
have no example of such an expression as ‘faith towards all the saints’; 
for, as we have seen, Philem. 5 cannot be regarded as sich. Moreover 
we expect from the two parallels that we should find a mention of ‘love’ at 

this point in the Epistle to the Ephesians. 

The argu- It has been urged that the fact that St Paul writes rjv xa tpas riorw 

ment from instead of ri ricrw bpav prepares us for an unusual collocation ; and that 

xa’ duGs- the contrast involved is between riv xa’ spas and rip els mdvras rovs 
dyiovs (Hort). But Dr T. K. Abbott has shewn (ad loc.) that xa® tpas 
in such a connexion is by no means unusual in later Greek. He cites 
Aelian, V. H. ii 12 4 kar’ avrov dpern, Diod. Sic. i 65 4 xara thy dpyny 
dmdOeors (laying down the government); and, in the New Testament, 
Acts xvii 28 trav xa& spas mownrav, xviii 15 vopouv Tod Ka® dyads, XXVi 3 
tav Kata "Iovdaiovs ebay. Accordingly tiv Kad’ ipas riorw év rH kupio 
"Inoov is not appreciably different from riy riotw tor ev Te Kupie “Incod, 
which would closely correspond with Col. i 4. 

The con- If in spite of the authorities which support it we reject (1), there can 

struction be no doubt that (2) must be the reading of our choice. For we then have 

th ah ba a close parallel to Col. i 4, when that passage has been purged of accre- 
changes, tions. Moreover the same phrase has in each epistle given occasion for 
the alterations of scribes; and (3) and (4) are seen to be alternative 
methods of escaping from the construction rjyv dyamny eis mavtas rods 
ayiouvs. This construction is, however, as we have seen, frequent in 
St Paul’s writings. Accordingly we may claim the evidence of (3) and 
(4) as practically supporting (2), of which they are obvious modifications: 


ee ree eT hs il ll 





NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 297 


so that we have the evidence of adi the Versions, as well as 8°D,°KL etc., 
to support D,*G, against 8*ABP (C unfortunately is missing from i 1 to 
ii 18, and again from iv 17 to the end). 

It is possible that the loss of the word in the chief mss is due to Possible 
homoeoteleuton. The resemblance between aitHNn and attHn is so close, homoeo- 
that aydamnv may have been passed over in kaiTHNaraTTHNElc. teleuton. 


ii 21 trAca OiKOAOMH. 


Ilaoa 7 oixodouyn is read by N*ACP, with many cursives and some ii 21 raca 
patristic evidence. olkodopy. 

Origen (cat. 151) has been cited for this reading, but ‘the article is Origen’s 

absent from the only codex we possess. On the other hand the Athos ms Treading. 
described by von der Goltz (Texte u. Unters. neue Folge ii 4, p. 75) has raca 
7 oixodopzy written above as an alternative to maca olxodouy: and the margin 
contains the following note: 16 ev pyroy Tod vropynpatos: év @ maca olko- 
Sou Gvev tov GpOpov. 7 dé e&yynots play A€youca Thy olkodopny TiOnoe Kal Td 
apOpov. The reference may perhaps be to the words 77 macy oixodou7, Which 
occur later in Origen’s comment. It is interesting however to note that in 
the supplement which Mr Turner (Journ. of Theol. Studies, April 1902, 
pp. 407 f.) has conjecturally added to correspond with Jerome’s Latin, the 
words aca 7 oixodoun are introduced. The change has apparently been 
made on the ground that Jerome here writes wniversa aedificatio, and not 
omnis aedificatio as before: for I understand that Mr Turner had not seen 
the evidence of von der Goltz’s Ms. 

We cannot do otherwise than accept the reading of the principal author- Thearticle 
ities. The insertion of the article was probably a grammatical correction, ™S¢ 
intended to secure the sense at a time when oixodoyy had come to be a " 
regarded almost exclusively as concrete in meaning. See the note in the grounds. 
commentary ad loc. 


iii 9 dwticat Tic H OlKONOM{a. 


I have discussed the internal evidence for this reading in the commen- iii Se i 
tary. The external evidence is conflicting. wees = 
Dorica (without wdvras) is read by N*A 67** Cyril (de recta Jide ad 
reg. ed. Aubert 1638, p. 123). To this Greek evidence we may add that of 
Origen as gathered from Jerome’s commentary. For though in the text 
Vallarsi prints i/wminare omnes, the word omnes is not found in some 
codices, and the subsequent comment indicates at two points that omnes 
was not present to the commentator’s mind, 
Serica mévras has the authority of 8° BCD,G,KLP etc, of various 
Greek writers, and of all the versions, with the partial exceptions in Latin 
of Hilary (in Ps. ix 3, ed. Vienna p. 76), Aug (de gen. ad lit. v. 38, ed. 
Vienna p. 162). ; 
It may be that the absence of B from its usual company is due here and 
elsewhere in the epistle to Western contamination. 


298 


lii 18 dos 
kat Bados. 


Old 
Syriac. 


Origen’s 
evidence. 


The result 
uncertain. 


iv 9 
xaréBn. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


iii 18 Yyoc Kal BAéoc. 
The main evidence is as follows : 
twos xat Bados BCOD,G;P 17 and other cursives, together with all 
versions (exc. syr>*), 
Babos kat dros NAKL and many cursives, Orig Eus Chrys etc. 


The exception of the Harklean Syriac is due to the correction by 
Greek mss of the earlier Syriac reading. The Peshito had the curious 
order tyros Kat Babos Kai pixos kal mAdros, and Ephraim’s commentary 
attests this for the Old Syriac. 

Origen in his commentary undoubtedly accepted the reading Bados 
kat vos, although incidentally he speaks of the Cross as having both 
dos and Babos. We find also BaOos cai dos in Hom. in Jerem. xviii 2 
(Ru. iii 243). The text of von der Goltz’s Athos ms has BaOos xai twos. 
But a note in the margin says that dyos cat Baéos was read in the text of 
the copy of Origen’s commentary, though he himself in his comment had 
Babos kat dros. 

The interpretation of such evidence is uncertain. If, as in the reading 
last discussed, we suppose that B has admitted a Western element, the 
claim of the reading of SA Orig (8a0os xat tyros) is very strong. I have 
however printed dos cat Babos in deference to the judgment of Westcott 
and Hort. 


iv'Q KaTEBH. 

This is the reading of 8*AC*D,G, 17 67**. 

But wpaérov is added in 8°BC°KLP and most cursives. The versions 
are divided : d.g, agree with their Greek, and there is no addition in sah 
boh aeth. On the other hand zpdror is attested by f vg (though not, appa- 
rently, by the original scribe of Codex Amiatinus): also by syr goth arm. 
Ephraim’s comment is a strange one, and it leaves us uncertain whether 
the Old Syriac had the addition or not : ‘ Now that which ascended what 
is it (saith he) but the body, which descended by means of death into 
Hades? for that is the lower region of the earth’. 

The Latin translator of Irenaeus has no addition (M. p. 331); but it 
must be remembered that this is the case with the Latins generally with 
the exception of Ambrosiaster. 

Clement (exc. Theod., P. 979) has no addition, It is noteworthy that he 
ends the sentence with xaré8n, and continues thus: 6 xaraBds avros éorw 
els Ta KaT@TaTa Tis yns Kal dvaBas drepavw Tay ovpavar. 

Origen, though he does not make this transposition, recognises the 
same connexion of thought: im Joann, xix 21 kal rdé- Eis ta xarérara ris 
Yiis 6 xaraBds, obrés éott kal dvaBds: comp. Xix 20 kal yap eis Ta Karoérepa 
(sic) népn tis ys 6 karaBas, x.r.A. These passages throw no light on Origen’s 
reading in regard to mp@royv: nor does the passage cited from the Latin of 
his commentary on Ezekiel (Ru. iii 358): nor again the incidental citation in 
Catena p. 162. Jerome’s commentary however in its text has no addition, 
and this may perhaps be an indication of Origen’s text at this point. 

The strangest point about this reading is the company in which B 
finds itself. 





NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 299 


ivI7 Ka@dcoc Kat TA €ONH. 


A small group of uncials with many cursives read xaOds kal rd Nourd iy 17 Td 
€0vy (8°D,°TK LP): so also syr goth arm; but not the Old Syriac as €v7. 
attested by Ephraim’s commentary. 

The addition is of an interpretative character. 


iv 28 taic xepcin TO dradodn. 
This is the reading of 8°B. Other readings are: iv 28 rats 


To dyaOov rais xepoiv L, many cursives, and the text of the Catena xe 
(2 Orig). es 
tais idias xepoly To dyabov N*AD,Gz and some cursives. 
TO ayaOoy rais idias xepoiv K and some cursives. 
To dyaov P 17 67** cod Laur 184 (y. der Goltz, p. 78). This is sup- 
ported by m and by Clem. Alex. (P. 308, 371). The comment of Origen 
would not require any other reading than this. 


The versions do not give us much help in a reading of this kind. 


iv 29 trpdc O/KOAOMAN TAc xpefac. 


We find the remarkable substitution of riorews for xpelas in D,*G 46. iv 29 ris 
Ad aedificationem fidei ia the almost universal reading in Latin codices XPe!as: 
and fathers. Jerome ad loc. says,‘ Pro eo autem quod nos posuimus ad 
aedificationem opportuniiatis, hoc est quod dicitur Graece rijs ypeias, in 
Latinis codicibus propter euphoniam mutauit interpres et posuit ad aedifi- 
cationem fidet’. Jerome’s rendering is found in Codd. Amiatinus and 
Fuldensis (the latter having opportunitatis fidet), but it has not succeeded 
in displacing the older Latin rendering in the ordinary Vulgate mss. 

The only Greek patristic evidence cited for ricrews is Greg. Nyss. in Clement’s 
Ecclesiast. vii 6 (Migne p. 727), Basil Regg. pp. 432, 485, alibi. It is how- Teading. 
ever to be noted that, although in Clem. Alex. Strom. i 18 90 (P. 371) 
we have zpos oixodoury tis xpelas, yet in the opening sentence of the 
Paedagogus we have the expression eis oixodopuny ricrews. 

It has been suggested to me that the reading of D,* and Iren. Haer, Comp. _ 
(praef. ad init.) in 1 Tim. i 4 should be borne in mind in the consideration ! Tim. i. 4. 
of this variant: pa@ddov 4 oikodopyy Oeod thy ev miore (D2° has olxodopuiay: 
the true reading being ofkovopiar). 


iv 32, V 2 YMIN...YMAC...YM@N. 


The reading of B is éyapicaro jpiv...jyamnoev vpas Kal mapédoxey éavrov re Hi ? 
drép tuav. NS has vpiv...dpas (quads &°)...1jpar. agers 
The reading in iv 32 may be considered by itself. B has the support of 
D, (but not d,) KL: but the same combination reads npiy also in the parallel 
passage, Col. iii. 13, where B goes with the other uncials in reading Upiv. 
The context would admit of ;jyiv, but dpiv is the more natural: and it is 


supported by NAG,P (the cursives and the versions are divided), 


300 EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


The readings in v 2 must be considered together. We can hardly allow 
a change of the pronoun in the two clauses coupled by cai. The evidence 
of the uncials is as follows: 


vpas N*ABP, npas S°D,G,KL: 

UpOv B, Ov NAD.G,KLP. 
The pro- In Modern Greek tyeis and jyeis are indistinguishable in sound, and 
ise this was probably the case when our Mss were written, for the scribes 


- exci perpetually confuse them. The context usually settles the question : but 
where either will make good sense, it is difficult to come to a decision. On 
the whole we may be satisfied to read the pronoun of the second person 
throughout this passage. 

V I4 €ttidaycei coi 6 xpictéc. 
Vv 14 ém- By the change of a single letter we get the reading érupaice: cot 6 


gaice.  ypords. I have already given (p. 119) a passage from Jerome ad /oc., in 
Sfparedy which he tells of a preacher who quoted the text as follows: ‘Surge Adam 
émipaice, (ut dormis, et exsurge a mortuis, et non ut legimus émpaioe vor Xpioros, 
id est orietur tibt Christus, sed émupaice:, id est continget te Christus’. 
There seems to be no Greek evidence to corroborate this. For though 
Cramer’s Catena ad loc., p. 196, 1. 31, has émiupatoe: cou 6 Xpioros, this 
appears to be but a copyist’s error: the extract is from Chrysostom ad Joc., 
and Field’s apparatus (p. 279) shews that several scribes have written 
emupavoe: for emipatoet. In Latin however we find continget te Christus in 
the old Roman edition of Ambrosiaster ad Joc., and in Augustine on Ps. iii 
6 (ed. Ben. iv iib). 
Further If this reading is due to a mere mistake, there is another which involves 
change, conscious alteration, viz. émupaicets rod xpiorov. It is found in Cod. Claro- 
emipatoes montanus (D.), the Latin side of which has continges Christum. It was 
sc oboll known to Chrysostom: indeed it probably stood in the ms which he was 
using for his commentary. For though, according to Field’s text and 
apparatus, in the first place in which he quotes the verse he gives us 
érubavoet oot 6 xpioros, yet a few lines lower down his comment runs thus: 
Kal enupatces, pyoi, tov xpiorod- of S€ haow “Emupavoes cot 6 xpicros: 
padXov S€ rotvro €or. This comment is far more natural if the text of the 
Catena be right, which gives in the first place émupaicets rod xpiorod. 
Continges Christum is found in Victorinus ad loc., and in some mss of 
Ambrosiaster: also in the Latin translator of Origen (Ru. ii 400, iii 78). 
Ruricius, epp. lib. ii 11, gives alternative readings: ‘et continges Christum 
siue inluminabit te Christus’. Moreover Paulinus of Nola, ep. xxxii 20, 
has: ‘Surge inquit gui dormis, et erigere a mortuis, et adtinges Christum’ : 
comp. ep. ix 2, ‘quamuis iamdudum ei dixeritis: Hrige te a mortuis, ut 
adtingas Christum’. 


V 15 BAétrete OYN A&kpIBOc Ac Trepittateire. 


V 15 dxpt- This is the reading of 8*B, 17 and other cursives, Or*: and the order 
8s més. is supported by the Bohairic version, which however reads ddeAdoi after 
dxpiBas. 





SS eS Cl 





NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 301 


NA have BAémere ody, ddedpoi, mds dxpiBds mepurareire, and this is 
supported by the Vulgate and Pelagius ad Joc. (as edited). D,G,KLP have 
the same reading without the insertion of ddeAdoi: this is supported by 
the Syriac and Armenian versions, and by Chrysostom, Lucifer, Victorinus 
and Ambrosiaster. Inid, dxpiBés is not represented. 


V 17 cynfete. 


This is read by NABP 17 67**., .syr arm. vr 

D,*G; have cvviorres, and D.°KL...have cumévres which is supported cvviere. 
by Chrysostom and others. 

The Latin rendering was Propterea nolite efficit (fieri) imprudentes, 
sed intellegentes, etc. It is quite possible that the participle came in by the 
process of Latinisation. 


V Ig wadmoic kal Ymnoic Kal GAaic TINEyMaTIKAaIC K.T.A. 


The readings of this verse are compared with those of Col. iii 16 by v 19 
Lightfoot, Colossians, pp.247 f. Here it may suffice to note that B (1) inserts ¥* 40s 
ev before Wadpois, with P 17 67**; (2) omits mvevparixais, with d, and some Sie 
mss of Ambrosiaster: (3) reads 77 xapdia, with 8*Or*, against év ri capdia 
or év tais xapdias. Of these variants (1) and (2) are probably errors, but 
(3) may be accepted. 


vy 22 al ryNnaikec, toic fAfoic ANApdcCIN. 


The only ms which at present offers this reading is B. Clement of v 22 Al 
Alexandria however cites the passage thus (P. 592) where he quotes vz. 21— Y7aikes; 
25, but where he begins his citation with v. 22 he inserts vroraccéoOwcay pdr 
(P. 308). Jerome says that the subditae sint of the Latin ‘in Graecis . 


codicibus non habetur’; and he was probably guided by Origen here. 
The other readings are: 
(a) Al yuvaikes, rois iSios dvSpaow dmrordoced Oe KL...syrChr 
(b) Al yuvaixes, drordoceabe trois ldiows dvdpdow DG; 
(c) Al yuvaixes rois (dios dvdpdow droraccécbwcav RAP...vg cop arm 
Clem** 
(a) and (b) preserve the vocative construction, which is found below in 
v. 25, Vi I, 4, 5, 9, and in the parallel passages in Col iii 18 ff. 
(b) gives vroraccecde in the same position as in Col. iii 18. 
(c) departs from the true construction, and perhaps is not independent 
of 1 Cor. xiv 34 ddd broraccécOacay. 
It is to be noted that in the chapter numberings of Euthalius a new 
capitulum ©’ begins with this verse. 


Vv 23. ayTOC CwWTHP TOY CHMATOCc. 
This is the reading of N*ABD,*G, latt., except that N*A prefix 6 to v 23 adris 
TorTnp. owrnp. 
N’D2KLP read cat adrés éote cwrnp Tov oaparos. The change was 
doubtless intended to make the language more smooth, but it weakens the 
sense. 


302 


V 27 avros 
éauTq@. 


V 31 mpos 
Thy 
yuvaika 
avrod. 


Omission 
of the 
whole 
clause. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


V¥ 27 INA TrapacTHCH AaYTOC EayTG. 


For avrés we find airy in D,°K and many cursives: also in Chrysostom, 
But here again the sense is obviously weakened by the change. 


V 30 OTI MEAH ECMEN TOY CHMATOC AYTOY. 


So the words stand without addition in N*AB 17 67** and in von der 
Goltz’s Athos ms. This last piece of evidence confirms the view that 
Origen knew of no addition (Ru. iii 61). We have further evidence from 
the Bohairic and Aethiopic versions, and from Methodius (Sympos. 54, 
Jahn p. 17). 

But the great mass of authorities add the words éx rs capkds avrovd Kat 
€k Tév doréwy avrov. Irenaeus read them and commented on them (Mass. 
Vv. 2 3, p. 294). They are derived from Gen. ii 23, Totro viv doroty ék Trav 
doréwv pov Kat oap& ex THs capKos pov, the verse which immediately precedes 
that which St Paul goes on to quote, ‘ For this cause shall a man leave,’ etc. 
It is not impossible that St Paul should himself have made this adaptation 
as a preliminary to his quotation: but the strength of the evidence against 
the words justifies us in regarding them as an early gloss. 


V 31 tpdc THN FYNdikd AYTOY. 
In Gen. ii 24 the evidence for the Lxx is as follows: 
mpos Ti yuvaixa avrod, DE and most cursives, supported by Origen in 
his comment on Eph. v 31. 
TH ‘yuvacxt avrov, A and some cursives. 
Unfortunately the evidence of XB is wanting. 


The passage is thrice quoted in the New Testament. 

In Matth. xix 5 the reading is r7 yuvacxi adrod in almost all authorities, 
In Mark x 7 the whole clause cai mpooxoAAnOnoerat mpos THY yuvaika adrov 
is wanting in NB. For the mss which have this clause the evidence is: 

mpos THY yuvaika avrov, DXTTM... 
Th yuvatxt avrov, ACLNA... 
In Eph. v 31 the main evidence is: 
mpos THY yuvaika avrov, N°BD°KL 
Th ‘yuvatkt avrov N* (om, avrov) AD,*G3 17 

Origen (Cat. ad loc.) expressly states that St Paul omitted the clause of 
the LXX mpockodAnOnoerae mpds Thy yuvaika avrov. In c. Cels. iv 49 he 
quotes, as from St Paul, yéypamra yap dri Evexev rtovrov xatadeiypet 
avOpwmos tov marépa Kal tiv pntépa Kat mpooKoAAnOnoerar mpos THY yuvaiKka 
avrov, kat €corrat of dvo eis odkpa play. Td pvoTHpLoy ToUTO péya €oTiv, K.TA, 
Here however he is quoting loosely from memory, as is shewn by his giving 
évexev rovrov for St Paul’s dvri rovrov. Again in Comm. in Matth. t. xvii 
c. 34 he first quotes, as it seems, from the Lxx, and then adds St Paul’s 
words : but he does not give a continuous quotation from St Paul. These 
two passages therefore are not really inconsistent with his statement as to 
the omission of the clause by St Paul. 











NOTE ON VARIOUS READINGS. 303 

It appears that from Marcion’s text of the epistle the clause was also 
absent. For Tertullian c. Marc. v 18 cites the passage thus: ‘ Propter hanc 
(v2. hoc) relinquet homo patrem et matrem, et erunt duo in carne una 
sacramentum hoc magnum est’ (‘hanc’ would seem to refer to ‘ ecclesiam ae 
comp. ¢. Mare. iii 5 ‘Suggerens Ephesiis quod in primordio de homine 
praedicatum est relicturo patrem et matrem, et futuris duobus in unam 
carnem, id se in Christum et ecclesiam agnoscere’. Epiphanius in a con- 
fused note (c. haer. xlii, schol. 3 in Ephes., p. 373) corroborates this 
evidence. 

It is remarkable that the only evidence of Greek mss for omission of 
the clause is that which we have already noticed in Mark x 7. 


vig kal aYTON kal YMAN. 


This is the best reading in itself, and it has the strongest authority, being vi 9 xal 
supported by &* (éaur.) ABD,*P 17 vg. aiTay kab 
The Latin of Clarom. (d,) has et uestrum ipsorum, and in consequence ““*”* 
of this the second xai of the Greek is dropped by the corrector: so that we 

get the reading xal avray ipav D,°, which is also found in G3. 
Cyprian, Testim. iii 73, has et westrum et ipsorum (om, et 2° cod. Monac.): 
this corresponds to cat judy Kal adrady N° (éavr.) L, 


The reading of the Textus Receptus xat duaév adréy has but very slight 
support. 


vi 10 TOY AoiTTOyY. 


This is read by X*AB 17, and is supported by the true text of Cramer’s vi 10 700 
Catena ad loc., which at this point almost certainly represents Origen (see Aovrod. 
Journ. of Th. St. iii 569). 

As rd Aourdy, or Aourdy alone, is frequent in St Paul's epistles, we are 
not surprised to find the variant rd Aouroy in x°D,G, and many other 
authorities. 


vi 16 €&N TIACIN. 


The preposition év is given by SBP 17... Cramer’s Catena ad Loc. supports vi 16 
this reading in its text, although Chrysostom from whom it is quoting at & vases 
this point has éwi. The Latin rendering is:in omnibus, with the rarest ér? waow. 
exceptions. 

On the other hand ém waow is found in AD,G,;KL and many other 
authorities. Ambrosiaster has super his omnibus. In Book xii of the 
de trinitate, ascribed to Vigilius of Thapsus, we find the rendering super 
haec omnia (Chifflet p. 313). This Book, however, according to a recent 
theory is a Latin translation of a Greek treatise (see references in the note 
on p. 291 above, see also p. 269 n.). In c. Varimad. iii 24 Vigilius has the 
usual rendering in omnibus. 


304 


vi 16 7a 
TeTUpw- 
péva. 


Vi 19 76 
puorhpioy 
Tov evay- 


yerlou. 


EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 


vi 16 TA TreTTYpwména. 


The definite article is omitted in BD,*G,. The combination is inter- 
esting, but it may be merely accidental. Origen has the article in his 
comment in the Catena, and in his comm. in Exod., Ru. ii 126. In his 
comm, in Joann, xxxii 2 (Ru. iv 406) the article is present, but a little 
lower down (p. 407), though Delarue has it, Huet and Brooke omit it. In 
the passages cited by Tregelles (Ru. i 266 and in Prov, Mai 12) we have 
only allusions from which no argument can be drawn. 


vi I9 TO MYCTHPION TOY eYarreAfoy. 


The omission of rot evayyeAiov by BG, is supported by Victorinus. In 
Tert. c. Marc. vy 18 we have the phrase constantiam manifestandi sacra- 
menit in apertione oris, which points to the same omission. 











INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


*Aya06s, ii 10, iv 28 f., vi 8 

ayabwotvn, V 9 

dyamray, ii 4, V 2, 25, 28, 33, Vi 243 
6 tryarnudvos, i 6 

dydwn, i115, ii 4, ili 19, vi 23; & 
ayarn, i 4, iii 17, iv 2, 15, 16 

dyanrnrés, V I, Vi 21 

ayidfew, Vv 26 

dytos* ol Gyo, i 1, 15, 18, ii 19, iii 18, 
iv 12, Vi18; ayo, iii 8, Vv 3; aytos 
kai Guwpos, i 4, ¥ 27; 7d mvetua 7d 
dytov, 1 13, iv 30; vads ayos, ii 21; 
of dryio. arocToXot, iii 5 

dyvou, iv 18 

ayputveiv, Vi 18 

dev, V 19 

ddedpos, Vi 21, 23 

Geos, ii 12 

alua* (rob xpirrod) 17, 11 135 alua Kai 
adpé, vi 12 

alpew, iv 31 

alcxpés, V 12 

aisxpérns, V 4 

aireicOat, ili 13, 20 

aixparwolay, 7Xuadwrevoev, iv 8 

aldv' 6 alwy otros, 1 213 Tod Kdopou 
Tovrou, ii 2; of aidves, iii 9, 11; of 
érepxdpevot, li 7; 6 alwv Tav aldvur, 
ili 21 

axabapoia, iv 19, V 3 

axdbapros, V 5 

Gkapmos, V 11 

dkovew (rdv xpiordv), iv 21 

axpiBds, V 15 

axpoBvoria, ii 11 

dkpoywriaios, ii 20 

GAjGea, iv 21, 24f., v9, Vir4; 6 Adyos 


EPHES.” 


THS ddyOelas, i 13; Kadws Eorw adt- 
Gea, iv 21 
adnOevew, iv 15 
avows, Vi 20 
duapravew, iv 26 
duapria, ii 1 
duv, iii 21 
duwpwos, i 4, V 27 
dvaBalveww, iv 8 ff. 
dvarywdoxew, iii 4 
dvaxepadaodoba, i 10 
dvahauBavew, vi 13, 16 
dvaveotoOa, iv 23 
avaora, V 14 
dvacrpéperOat, ii 3 
dvacrpoph, iv 22 
dvewos (ris didacxaNias), iv 14 
dveiixviacros, iii 8 
dvéxerOar, iv 2 
ayjKkev, V 4 
dyip* els dvdpa réXeov, iv 13 
dvOpwrdperxos, Vi 6 
dvOpwros* els va xawéy, ii 15; 6 tow, 
lii 16; 6 wadracds, iv 223 6 Kacrds, 
iv 24; of viol rav dvOpdruy, iii 5 
dviéva, Vi 9 
dvoéis, Vi 19 
aytt Tovrov, V 31 
dvricrivat, Vi 13 
délws mepimarelv, iv I 
drndynkébres, iV 19 
darndorpiwpévor, ii 12, iv 18 
dwarayv, V 6 
dwdarn, iv 223 
dwrel6ia* of viol ris, ii 2, V 6 
amet}, Vi 9 
awddrns, Vi 5 
29 


306 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


amoxahvrre, iii 5 
dmwoxahuyis, 1 17, iii 3 
amwoxaradd\aocew, ii 16 
droxpimreyv, iii 9 
amoxreivew, ii 16 
dmrohvTpwots, 1 7, 14, iv 30 
aaécrondos, i 1, ii 20, ili 5, iv 11 
amorifec@a, iV 22, 25 
dppaBay, 1 14 

apxh, i 21, iii 10, Vi 12 
dpxwy, ii 2 

acévyea, iv 19 

dcogpos, V 15 

adcwrla, Vv 18 

abdéavew, li 21, iv 15 
avénow, iv 16 

abrés (emph.), ii 14, iv 10 f., V 23, 27 
&dpeots, 1 7 

apy, iv 16 

apOapola, Vi 24 

agpwr, V 17 


Babos, iii 18 

Bawripa, iv 5 

Baoirela rod xpicrod xat Oeod, V 5 
Bédos, vi 16 

Bracpnula, iv 31 

Prérew* ws, V 15 

Bovrh (rod Oedjparos av’rod), i 11 


vyeveal, iii 5, 21 

yruplfew, 1 9, lili 3, 5, 10, Vi 19, 21 
yous, iii 19 

yovara Kdpmrrew, iii 14 

yoveis, Vi I 


dénors, Vi 18 

déopuos, lii 1, iv 1 

déxecOar (wepixepadalay), Vi 17 
didBodos, iv 27, Vi 11 

diab Fxa (rijs éwaryyeNlas), ii 12 
diaxovla, iv 12 

didxovos, iii 7, vi 21 

dudvora, li 3, iv 18 

didackadla, iv 14 

iddoxaro, iv 11 

dddoxerOa (év arg), iv 21 
dfxavos, Vi 1 

dixaoodyn, iV 24, Vg, Vi 14 
616, ii 11, iii 13, iv 8, 25, V 14 
Ooymara, ii 15 


Soxiudfew, V 10 

Sduara, iv 8 

d6éa, lil 13, 213 els &rawwov (ris) SbEns, 
16, 12, 143 6 warhp THs ddéns, 1173 
mwdodros THs 5dEns, 1 18, iii 16 

dovdevew, VI 7 

doddos, Vi 5 f., 8 

ddvauts, 1 19, 21, iii 7, 16, 20 

Swped, iii 7, iv 7 

dGpov, ii 8 


évyelpev, i 20, V 14 

26vn, Ta, ii 11, iii 1, 6, 8, iv 17 

el ye, ili 2, iv 21 

eldwdoAdTpys, V 5 

eipyvn, i 2, ii 17, iv 3, Vi 15, 233 4 
cipiyvn huey, li 143 morely eipivnr, 
ii 15 

éxkdyola, 1 22, lili 10, 21, V 23 ff., 27, 
29, 32 

éxréyerOar, 1 4 

éxmopever Oat, iv 29 

éxrpépe, V 29, Vi 4 

édaxiorérepos, iii 8 

éhéyxew, V II, 13 

édeos, li 4 

édedOepos, vi 8 

éxmls, 1 18, ii 12, iv 4 

évielxvucOat, ii 7 

évdogos, V 27 

évduvapodc@a, Vi 10 

évdtoacOat, iv 24, Vi 11, 14 

évépyera* xara (riv), i 19, iii 7, iv 16 

évepyetv, i II, 20, ii 2, iii 20 

évxaxely, lil 13 

évérns, 1V 3, 13 

€vToAn, ii 15, Vi 2 

éfaryopdgew, V 16 

éiioxvew, lii 18 

éfovgla, 1 21, ii 2, ili 10, vi 12 

émayyeMa, i 13, ii 12, iii 6, vi 2. 

érraivos, v. ddta 

émepxdpevor (aldves), ii 7 

émlyvwots, 1 17, iv 13 

émidvev, iv 26 

émOupla, ii 3, iv 22 

éemipavoKew, V 14 

émcxopnyla, iv 16 

émotxodopuetoOat, li 20 

érovpavias, év Tots, 1 3, 20, ii 6, iii 10, 
vi 12 








INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


épyagerOar, iv 28 

épyacla, iv 19 

épyov (Staxovias), iv12; épyaiigf., v 11 
érotwacla, Vi 15 

ed ylvecOa, Vi 3 

evayyeniferOat, li 17, iii 8 
evayyédov, i 13, iii 6, Vi 15, 19 
evayyedoral, iv II 

evdpecros, V 10 

evdoxla, i 5, 9 

evrAoyelv, i 3 

evroynrbs, i 3 

evroyla, i 3 

etvowa, Vi 7 

edomdayxvos, iV 32 

evrpameNla, V 4 

edxapioreiy, i 16, V 20 
evxapioria, V 4 

evwdla, V 2 

&xOpa, ii 15 f. 


Swi (rod Geod), iv 18 


Hrxla, iv 13 

Hdwos, iv 26 

huépa’ dmrodurpdcews, iv 30; mwovnpd, 
v 16, Vi 13 


Oadrew, V 29 

Oédnua (Beod, xuplov), i I, 5, 9, II; 
V 17, Vi 6; Ta Oedjpara, li 3 

Oepédtos, li 20 

OepedovoOa, ii 17 

OAlwes, iii 13 

Oupds, iv 31 

Oupeds, Vi <6 

Ovola, V 2 

Odpaé, Vi 14 


Udcos, [iv 28], ¥ 22 

Incods' ddHbea év r~ "Inood, iv 21 
"Iopanr, li 12 

isxvs, i 19, Vi Io 


kadapifeyv, Vv 26 

xabigew, i 20 

xawds dvOpwros, ii 15, IV 24 
katpés, i 10, ii 12, V 16, Vi 18 
kakla, iv 31 

KareioPa, iv I, 4 

kdumrev Ta yovara, ili 14 


307 


xapdla, i 18, iii 17, iv 18, v 19, vi 5, 22 

Kapwos Tod dwrbs, v 9 

kara: 7) Ka? dwas mloris, i153; Te Kar’ 
éué, Vi 21; of Kad’ eva, ¥ 33 

xaraBalvey, iv g f. 

karaBody Kbopuou, i 4 

kaTadauBaverOat, iii 18 

karadelrew, V 31 

katavray, iv 13 

Karapyeiv, ii 15 

karapriouos, iv 12 

karevioriov, i 4 

karepydgecOa, Vi 13 

karoueiv, iii 17 

KaTouKnThp.ov, ii 22 

karwrepa pépn, iV 9 

kavxacda, li g 

kevol Advyor, V 6 

Kepadh, i 22, iv 15, V 23 

KAérrew, iv 28 

KAnpovouia, i 14, 18, ¥ 5 

KAnpodobat, i 11 

KNjows, 1 18, iv 1, 4 

Krvdwvl ger Oat, iv 14 

koulfew, vi 8 

xomay, iv 28 

Koomoxpdropes, Vi 12 

Kdopos, i 4, ii 2, 12 

kparacodoba, iii 16 

kpdros (ris toxvos adroit), i 19, Vi 10 

Kpavyt, IV 31 

Kpupy, V 12 

xrigew, ii 10, 15, lii 9, iv 24 

xuBla, iv 14 

ktpios* év xuply, ii 21, iv 1, 17, Vv 8, 
vi 1, 10, 213 €v T@ Kuply "Inood, i 15 

kupiorys, 1 21 


Nyos, Vi rg; THs ddnGelas,i 13; campds, 
iv 29; Kevots Ndyors, ¥ 6 

Nowwds’ of Novwol, ii 3; [Ta Aocwd EOvn, 
iv 17]; Tod Nowwrod, vi Io 

dourpdév, V 26 

Mew, li 14 

dumeiv, iv 30 


paxpoOuula, iv 2 
paxpoxporios, Vi 3 

pavOdvew tov xpiordy, iv 20 
papriperdat, iV 17 
paraérns, i¥ 17 


308 


pdxaipa, vi 17 

péyas (uvorjpior), V 32 

uéyeOos, i 19 

peOodta, Iv 14, Vi II 

peOtoxecOa, V 18 

Bédos, IV 25, V 30 

pépos, iv 16; Ta Kardrepa puépn, iv 9 
pecdroixov, ii 14 

peracdévar, iv 28 

uérpor, iW 7, 13, 16 

pixos, iii 18 

pemnThs, V 1 

pucely, V 29 

pwelay wovetcOa, 1 16 

pynuovevew, ii It 

pvorhpiov, i g, ili 3 f., 9, V 32, Vi 19 
puwpohoyia, V 4 


vads, li 21 

vexpos, 1 20, ii 1, 5, V 14 

virios, iv 14 

voeiv, iii 4, 20 

vomos (r&v évrokGy ev Sbypyacw), ii 15 
vovdecla, Vi 4 

vous, iV 17, 23 


tévos, li 12, 19 


oixetos (rod Geob), ii 19 
oixodouh, ii 21, iv 12, 16, 29 
olxovoula, 1 10, ili 2, 9 

olvos, V 18 

drbyos* & Orlyy, iii 3 

évoma, 1 21, V 20 
évoudgerOa, 1 21, iii 15, ¥ 3 
épyh, ii 3, iv 31, v 6 
dpylierOar, iv 26 

oovdrns, iv 24 

éounh edwilas, V 2 

éogus, Vi 14 

ovpavol, i 10, iii 15, iv 10, vi 9g 
dgpeltre, V 28 

ép0arpodovria, vi 6 

ép0arpol ris xapdlas, i 18 


watdela, Vi 4 

rahads &vyOpwros, iv 22 
wan, Vi 12 

mwavom\la, Vi II, 13 
mavoupyla, iv 14 
mapadddvat, iV 19, V 2, 25 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


mwapakandev, iv 1, Vi 22 

wapaxTwpara, i 7, li 1, 5 

wapworavar, V 27 

mdpotkos, li 19 

mwapopyivew, Vi 4 

mapopytouos, iv 26 

mappyola, iii 12, vi 19 

mwappnowagerbar, Vi 20 

was waca oixodoun, ii 21; waca warpid, 
iii 153; ol mdyres, iv 13; Ta wdvra, 
i rof., 23, iif 9, iv: 10; 15) ¥ 23% 
év maow, i 23, iv 6, vi 16 

mwatnp (Geds), i 2 f., 17, li 18, iii 14, 
iv 6, V 20, Vi 23 

warp, ili 15 

TIadXos, i 1, iii 1 

maverOa, i 16 

mwerolOnots, lii 12 

mepv@vvvcbar, Vi 14 

mepixepadala, Vi 17 

meprareivy, ii 2, 10, iv 1, 
8, 15 

wepirolnots, i 14 

mepioocevev, 1 8 

mepiroun, li 11 

meppeperOat, iv 14 

mxpla, iv 31 

morevew, 1 13, 19 . 

mioris, i 15, li 8, iii 12, 17, iv 5, 13, 
vi 16, 23 

muoTos, 1 I, Vi 21 

wrayn, iv 14 

wraTos, iii 18 

wheovéxTns, V 5 

mreovetla, iv 19, V 3 

aAnpody, 1 23, iii 19, iv 10, V 18 

wrApwpa, 1 10, 23, ili 19, iv 13 

awrnolov, 6, iv 25 

mwrovoos, ii 4 

mwrobros, i 7; 18, ii 7, iii 8, 16 

mvedpa’ THs émayyedlas To ayiov, i 13; 
To ady.ov Tod Geod, iv 30; avrod (sc. 
Ge0d), 11 16; codplas kat aroxahtweus, 
1173 Tod vods dudr, iv 23; év rvedua, 
li 18, iv 43; évérns rod mvevuaros, 
iv 3; év mvevpart, ii 22, iii 5, v 18, 
Vi 183; udxatpa Tod rvedparos, Vi 17; 
TOU mvevparos TOU viv évepyoivTos év 
rots viots ris dmreOlas, ii 2 

mvevparixds, i 3, V IQ; TA WvevpariKd, 
vi 12 


17, VW 2,5 


Suis tee 


eee se ee ee eee 





INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


moceiv (rpoGectw), iii 11; moveto Oat pyelav, 
1163 moetoOac avénow, iv 16 

moinua, ii 10 

mowméves, iV II 

modurela, li 12 

modvroiktdos, lii 10 

movnpla, Vi 12 

movnpos, 6, Vi 16; tuépa, ¥ 16, Vi 13 

mopvela, V 3 

mopvos, V 5 

movs, 1 22, Vi 15 

mpaccew, Vi 21 

awpairns, iV 2 

mpémew, V 3 

mpeaBevew, Vi 20 

mpoypapew, ili 3 

mpoermivew, i 12 

mpoeropageyv, il 10 

mpodecw, KaTd, i 11, lil 11 

mpooplvew, 1 5, II 

mpocarywyh, ii 18, iii 12 

mpocevxerGar, Vi 18 

mpocevxh, i 16, vi 18 

mpockaprépnots, Vi 18 

mpooko\NaoOat, V 31 

apoopopd, V 2 

mpoowtoAnuylia, Vi 9 

mporiderOat, i g 

mpophrat, ii 20, ili 5, iv 14 

mupotc@a, Vi 16 

wwpwos THs Kapdlas, iv 18 


pia Oeod, vi 173 év pryari, ¥ 26 
prgodoGar, iii 17 
putls, V 27 


campos, iv 29 

odpt, ii 3, V 29, 313 € capxl, il 11; 
év 77 capkt avrod, ii 15; xara oapka, 
vi 5; mpds alua xat odpxa, Vi 12 

oBevvdva, Vi 16 

oxoros, V 8, II, Vi 12 

cxorovcba, iv 18 

copia, i 8, 17, ili 10 

sopol, V 15 

omthos, V 27 

omovoager, iv 3 

oraupos, li 16 

oropa, iv 29, Vi 19 

cwappororyetoOa, ii 21, iv 16 

oupiBaver@a, iv 16 


3¢9 


civderuos, iv 3 

cuveyelpew, li 6 

guveots, lil 4 

ouvSworoew, li 5 

ouvidvat, V 17 

cuvKabltew, ii 6 

guvKAnpovouos, iii 6 

cuvKowwvety, V II 

ouvpéroxos, iii 6, V 7 

cuvorkodopetoOar, li 22 

owmonlrns, ii 19 

ctvowpos, ili 6 

oppaylierOar, i 13, iv 30 

owgerOa, li 5, 8 

oGpa, iv 16, V 23, 28; (rod xpiorod), 
i 23, iv 12, V 30; év cua, ii 16, iv 4 

cwTnp To cwuaTos, V 23 

gwrnpla, i 13 

cwrhpiov, 76, Vi 17 


ramewogpoctvn, iv 2 

réxva, V1, Vil, 43 Opys, li 33 pwrds, 
v8 

rédevos (dvjp), iV 13 

Tnpeiv, iv 3 

romov diddvat, iv 27 

Tpopos, V1 5 

Téxcxos, Vi 21 


tdwp, V 26 

viobecla, i 5 

vids’ 700 Ged, iv 13; 7s dweOlas, li 2, 
v 6; Tov dvOpdrwv, iii 5 

vpvos, V 19 

braxovey, Vi I, 5 

brepayw, i 21, iV 10 

bmepBddrew, i 19, li 7, iil 19 

imepextrepttood, iil 20 

brodeioOar, Vi 15 

brordccew, 1 22, V 21, 24 

tyos, iii 18, iv 8 


gavepotcOat, V 13 
pbelperOai, iv 22 
popeicGar, V 33 
poBos, V 21, Vi 5 
pparyuds, li 14 
gpovnors, 1 8 

poet, ii 3 

gas, v 8f, 13 a 
gwrifev, 1 18, M1 9g 


310 


xaplierOar, iv 32 

xdpw, Tovrod, iii 1, 14 

xdpis, 1 2, 6F., ii 5, 7f., vi 24; (dodeioa, 
€660n), ili 2, 7f., iv 73 wa 50 xdpuw 
Tois dxovovew, iv 29 

xapirodv, 1 6 

xelp, iv 28 

xetporolnros, ii 11 

xpela, iv 28; mpds oixodouny ris xpelas, 
iv 29 f 

xpnorés, iv 32 

xpnorérns, ii 7 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS. 


Xpucrés’ & TO xpiorg@, i 10, 12, 203 
évy Te xpoTr@ “Inood re xuply hudv, 
iii 11; éy Xpurg, i 3, iv 32; & 
Xpicr@ "Inood, i 1, ii 6f., 10, 13, 
iii 6, 21; xwpls Xpicrod, ii 12 


ydadr\ew, ¥ 19 
Warudbs, ¥ 19 
eddos, iv 25 
puxh éx puxiis, vi 6 


gon, VY 19 


ne ere 





AN eee ee 


INDEX OF 


Adoption, 27 f., 143 

agapae, 122 

Ambrosiaster, 143, 172, 268, 
Roman edition of, 294, 300 

Anthology, epigram of Philip of Thes- 
salonica, 262 f. 

Antioch, Church in, 5, 55 

aorist, meaning and rendering of, 142, 
190, 195, 205 ; epistolary, 167, 217, 
276 

apostles and prophets, 69, 77 f£., 97 f., 
163, 181 

Aristotle, on ag7, 1863; xopnyetv, 187 ; 
eUrpamrevla, 1973 évépyea, 242 ff; 
TANPWUA, 259 

Armenian version, evidence for Old 
Syriac, 214, 267 n. 

article ; qualifying phrase added with- 
out art., 1 15 n., ii 11, iii 4 n., IVT; 
anarthrous subst. with further defi- 
nition, iii 11 n., iv 14, 16 n. $5 art. 
with first only of related terms, 
vy5n.3 art. with the second of two 
nouns, V 23 Nn. 

Ascension of Isaiah, on evil spirits, 
154; seven heavens, 180; the Be- 
loved, 232 

Ascension of our Lord, 24, 96, 179 f. 

atonement : redemption through blood, 
29; blood of a covenant, 62 f. ; 
reconciliation, 65 f. 


BOI 5 


Baptism, 178, 206 f.; confession at, 
125, 206 f.; origin of baptismal 
creed, 207; Voice at the Baptism, 
230 f. 

Beloved, the, 28; detached note on, 
229 ff. 


SUBJECTS. 


Body, of Christ, the Church, 41 ff.; 
fulfilling Him, 43 f., 87 ff., 100 f.; 
quotations from Clement, 140 ; Origen 
and Chrysostom, 45; one body, 65 f., 
93 f.; fellow-members of (‘concor- 
porate’), 78; growth of, 102 ff., 131, 
183, 188; building of, 99, 182, 188; 
Christ the Head of, 41 ff., 103, 124 ff.; 
the Saviour of, 124 f.; lying is a sin 
against, 110 f.; ‘in a bodily way’, 
88; ‘ the body of His flesh’, 88, 161 

building, metaphor derived from, 67 ff., 
112 f.; building and growth, 71, 99, 
113, 182, 188; rooted and founded, 
85 f.; of Greek temples, 260 ff. 


Calvary, legend of, 119 n. 

Christ : the rendering of ‘ Messiah ’, 6; 
with and without the article, 22, 32; 
the titles ‘Christ’ and ‘ Jesus’, 23 f., 
107; ‘Christ’ and ‘the Lord’, 72, 
90; ‘Christ’ and ‘the Son of God’, 
roo; ‘in Christ’, 22 ff., 32 f., 57 f.; 
‘without Christ’, 56 f., 158; Christ 
in us, 85; to ‘learn Christ’, 106, 
190; the kingdom of, 117 5 the fear 
of, 123, 127, 209; See also Body, 
Fulness, Mystery 

Church, the, 80, 89, 124 ff. ; its relation 
to Christ, see Body, Fulness: the 
household of God, 67; God’s house, 
68 f.; God’s temple, 71 f.; Christ’s 
ecclesia, 68 f. 

Clement of Alexandria, on the Church, 
140 

Sclvasians! Epistle to, 136 f.; passages 
discussed, (i 24) 44, (i 26 f.) 238, 
(ii 9) 88, (ii 13 f.) 153 


312 


Corinthians, First Epistle to : passages 
discussed, (ii 1 ff.) 237, (ii 6, 8) 154, 
(iii 9) 165, (iii 10 ff.) 260f., (xii 6) 
152, (xiii) 251. Second Epistle to, 
122; its opening, 18 ; passages dis- 
cussed, (i 13) 251, (i 21) 147, (iii 14) 
265, (v 1) 165, (v 19) 195, (viii 1) 
225 f. 

corner-stone, 68 f., 163 f. 


Dative, of definition, ii 1 n.; of time, 
iii 5 n. 

Didaché, date and value of, 98 n.; on 
apostles and prophets, 98; list of 
warnings, 112 n.; parallels quoted 
from, 176, 200, 211 f. 

dispensation, 32, 144 f. 


Elect, the: see detached note on ‘The 
Beloved’, 229 ff. 

election: the principle of selection, 
25 ff. ; the ultimate purpose of, 33 ff. 

English versions: early, i 11, 23, iv 
16; 70, 132n.,264. A.V.,i11, 23, 
ii 9, 20, ili 15, 21, iv 21, 24, 32, 
V 13, 26, vi 4, 63 57, 92, 99, 118, 
x90 n., 132, 136. B. V., i rr; 76, 
264 

Ephesians, Epistle to: a circular 
letter, 11; omission of ‘in Ephesus’, 
11 f. and note on variants, 292 ff.; 
absence of salutations, 12; analysis 
of, 13 f.; summary of, r30f. 

Ephraim Syrus, commentary preserved 
in Armenian, 142 f., 145, 148, 152, 
214, 267 D., 288, 290, 293, 298 f. 

epistolary phrases, 37 f.; opening salu- 
tations, 141; detached note on, 
275 ff. 

Esdras, Second (Fourth): parallels 
quoted from, 39 n., 48 


Fatherhood of God, 27 f., 38, 83 ff., 
93 £., 174 

flesh: of Christ, 63 f£.; ‘the body of 
His flesh’, 88, 161; ‘in the flesh’, 
56, 72; ‘one flesh’, 126; ‘blood 
and flesh’, 213 

Fritzsche : notes on eddoxia, 144; éxt- 
yrwots, 252; AApwua, 255 

fulness, 87 ff.; of the times, 32, 39 n.; 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


of Christ, 42 ff., 100 f.; of God, of 
the Deity, 88 f.; detached note on 
mripwya, 255 ff. 


Galatians, Epistle to: passages dis- 
cussed, (ii 7, 9) 75, (ii 20) 108, 183, 
(ii 8) 243 f., (v 6) 246 

Galen: see Medical writers 


Gentiles: use of the term, 157 f., 189; _ 


problem of their inclusion, 5 f., 35 f., 
55 f.; former condition of, 56 ff., 
60 f., 105 f.; new position of, 58, 62, 
67, 78 f. 

grace : opening salutation, 141 ; closing 
formula, 137, 217; St Paul’s use of 
the term, 28, 5: f., 75 f., 95; to 
‘give grace’, 113, 193 f.; grace of 
speech, 116, 198 f.; detached note 
on xdpis, 221 f. 


Hebraistic phrases : ‘sons of’, 49, 156, 
168; ‘purpose of the ages’, 80; 
‘inheritance’, 116 ; ‘ walking’, 153 ; 
‘heavens’, 180; ‘know ofa surety’, 
199 

Hippocrates : see Medical writers 

humility, a new virtue, 91 


Inscriptions : temple-barrier, 60, 160; 
on building, 164, 260 ff. 


James, Epistle of: passages discussed, 
{iv 6) 223, (v 12) 279 n., (v 16) 247 
Jerome : his commentary on Ephesians 
mainly from Origen, 143, 147, 162, 
171 f., 173, 196, 198 f., 297 f. ; his 
revision of the Vulgate, 147, 289; 
various readings or renderings, 78 
(concorporales), 147 (pignus), 164 
and 288 (summus angularis lapis), 
171 f. (propositum), 174 (paterni- 
tates), 177 (in ecclesia), 193 and 299 
(opportunitatis), 208 (propter hoc), 
290 (tota arma); on a legend of 
Calvary, 119 n.; on bishops, 123; 
on the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews, 
194; on Clement, 254 n.; on Jer. 
vi 26 (dyaryrés), 229 n.; on Job 

xvii 7 (rerdpwvrat), 265 n. 
Jerusalem, conference at, 8; 
Temple 


see 


SS ee 








INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 313 


Jesus: see Christ 
Jewish thought, contemporary, 41, 49, 
133 D., 154, 175, 180, 213 


Kneeling, in N.T., 82 f., 174 


Latin versions, 289 f.: see Jerome 
Lord, the: see Christ: ‘in the Lord’, 
72, go, 118, 128 


Man, Divine purpose for, 14, 130; not 
changed by sin, 29; worked out by 
election, 29, 33; through the Church, 
44 f.; ‘nature’ of man, 50; new 
making of man in Christ, 52 f., 1o1; 
‘one new man’, 65, 94; ‘a perfect 
man’, roof.; the individual and the 
whole of humanity, 102 f.; ‘the old 
man’ and ‘the new man’, 107 ff.: 
see also Unity 

Medical writers, illustrations from: 
Hippocrates, 186, 195; Galen, 187 f., 
200, 242; Dioscorides, 207, 264 

Messiah, the hope of the Jew, 6 f., 
22 f.: see Christ 

ministry, the Christian, 97 ff. 

mystery: source of the word to St 
Paul, 30 f.; his use of it, 208 f.; 
the Divine ‘secret’, 39, 76 ff., 81; 
the epithet ‘great’, 126; ‘the mys- 
tery of the gospel’, 136, 216; de- 
tached note on uvornpiov, 234 ff. 


Origen: his commentary on Ephesians, 
quoted, 45, 143, 148-1.,. 152, 163, 
173, 183 f., 190, 195, 198 f. (edxa- 
pioria), 203 (éEayopagopueva), 219 
(4pOapoia), 254 (€rlyvwors), 269 f. 
(zwapwors), 292 (om. év ’Edéow), 298, 
302; text of Greek fragments, 199 ; 
newly edited, 297, 303; notes in 
von der Goltz’s ms, 292 f., 297 ff.: 
see Jerome 


Papyri, illustrations from, 275 ff.: 
further citations, 37, 146, I51, 159, 
169 

Pastoral Epistles, phraseology of, 209 
and 239 f. (uvornpiov), 141 (opening 
salutation), 151 and 155 (6 voy aly), 
153 (absence of mepiraretv), 193 


EPHES.” 


(S:aBoros), 196 (Sodva éavrdy), 200 
(édéyxew), 226 (xdpis), 251 f. (éxt- 
ywors adnBeias), 283 (xdpw exw); 
further passages noted in 1 Timothy, 
(i 17) 218, (ii 1) 216, (ii 5) 178, 
(ill 13) 148, (iv 5) 216, (iv 13) 168, 
(v 5) 284, (v 8) 163, (vi 17) 1693 
in 2 Timothy, (i 3) 280, (i 8) 166f, 
(i 10) 170 and 218, (i 8—r2) 172, 
(i 16) 216, (iii 16) 211, (iv 5) 181 f., 
(iv 19) 281; in Titus, (i 5) 166, 
(ii 7) 218, (iii 3) 195, (iii 4) 156, 
(iii 5) 206, (iii 10) 211, (iii 14) 193, 
(iii 15) 281 

Paul, St: preparation for his mission, 
5, 25, 61; his sense of the problem 
which faced him, 7, 75 f.; his en- 
deavours for reconciliation, 8 f., 553 
cause and effect of his imprisonment, 
9 f., 74; his relations with Ephesus, 
12; his style, 19, 47 f.; his relation 
to the life and words of the Lord, 
a2f, 

Pelagius, commentary of, 295 

Peter, First Epistle of : dependent on 
Ephesians, 151, 171, 175, 209; Pas- 
sages discussed, (ii 9) 148, (iii 21) 
207 

Primasius, commentary attributed to, 


295 
prophets, Christian: see Apostles 


Rabbinic literature, 48, 151, 175, 213; 
231 n.: see Jewish contemporary 
thought 

readings, various: see notes on i 6, 
iii 9, 13 f., 21, iv 6, 19, 29, V 223 
and the detached note, 285 ff. 

redemption, 29, 36, 147 f. 

revelation, 39, 76f.; see Mystery 

Romans, Epistle to, passages discussed, 
(i 9 f.) 279, (vi 6 ff.) 108, (viii 28) 
171, (x 8 ff.) 206, (xi 7, 25) 265, 
(xii 3) 225 

Rome, St Paul at, 1; its influence on 
his thought, 5, 10 


Salutations, opening, 17 f., 141, 277 fie 
closing, 137, 217 ff., 280 f. 


slavery, 128 ff. 
Spirit, the: the ‘earnest of the in- 


21 


314 


heritance’, 35 f.; meaning of, 38f., 

49, 66, 72, 78, 92f.; ‘unity of the 

Spirit’, 92 f.; the Spirit and the 

corporate life, 113; ‘filled with the 

Spirit’, 121 f.; ‘the sword of the 

Spirit’, 135 f.; see mvetua 
spiritual powers, 41, 49, 132 f. 
Stephen, teaching of St, 3 f. 


Temple, description of the, 59; in- 
scribed barrier in the, 60, 160; 
substructures of the, 69; naos and 
hieron, 71; building of Greek 
temples, 260 f. 

Testaments of the xii Patriarchs, 
quoted, 154, 195, 227 n. 

Thessalonians, First Epistle to: pas- 
sages discussed, (i 2 f.) 279, (ii 13 f.) 









LISRARD 
OF THE 


UNIVERSITY 


\&ucoRNIA 7 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


246, Second Epistle to: passages 
discussed, (i 11) 182, (i 12, ii 16) 225, 
(ii 7) 209, (ii 7 ff.) 236f., 242, 246, 
(iii 17) 137 

Tychicus, 12 f., 136 f. 


Unity, St Paul’s efforts on behalf of, 
7 ff., 55; ‘the one’ and ‘the many’ 
of Greek philosophy, 32; unity of 
mankind in Christ, 52 f., 65, 91, 
94; abolition of distinction between 
Gentile and Jew, 55 f., 59 ff., 64; 
‘the unity of the Spirit’, 92 f.; unity 
in diversity, 95 f.; ‘the unity of the 
faith’, 99: see also Body, Man 


Vigilius of Thapsus: authorship of de 
trin. xii, 269, 291, 303 









J 





CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 


ieee ee 
re) _ S 
ry 
a 
- 
a a — = 
> a 
. : aS 
SS 
—— — 
~~ 
. - a 
7 
- a c 
e : : rae 
_ = ai 
. i 
a. 
a ie 
= 
me a) - 
- 
7 oa 
. 
a. sa 
_ 
: 7 
— 
_ 
- 
a 
ere 
a 
7 rr 
2 
ae 
i 
— a a 
an 
teks 
a 
ae 





: 


25, 
ij 


F e ce VE AS Evan 
3 a i 

- Bey Gey f 
eS eg <j ; 
ohne Ss. 


¢ on 











ee as Sf Lone Oee  e 8. Cte Oe" alte, de ars CO 
’ a MTT RE te hee er caer Ae 


fo a eg 
ie ne Prletad ES adnate, Nim MaDe POMS aft Rte i ae 
Se nee ee jot et 

Bins TNS 


* Pt RE Nts Tt ale amet yn 





WO Rw era gman, Amey 
6 Dwr Be ae em, 





ew wo Pint a Ps 
ee ee : : 7 
Mike gS emo on Pe Ase antira - Pa Pe at 
~ “4 r a" ate pa ah oft GN clit Bie Raa FL maine en I igen 
Ne a ATAPI OE ip ee eae 
y rf : Sarat ne liye, floyd. - See nh milbite <a sth, es 
~ ar PAP ANE ‘ wie wi ome a Som S cqeaene-i-sast tag EY aay oo inane 
re <eea > . Poe, ZA ; . 
LA Ay ah ag ha taht a St Seb. EA ce iy, H.-A a gla LP ER, oy ABS 
a3 Pr Po a pare ~ oe FR Mebane? GO Cail ar malate o- e-eties 
PAS Be trai pp TREN re a arcs SP einsinm ey Reno ALAA mer Rtn ar te 2 case 
ci yr ete D> z hat ma Sia a cla ~e oh 4 
a ar ani ka ota OOD LP IEP NSS 
nil P RE Ee > i ae tn ak a an aaa ae 
Pe ars SP GR 
SN ane 3 8 2 5 Rt tg tHe oa 


< ee h sd 
pam ty “ a nent anatase tet Se la 


ee an 








tye t St eb En Scale > 
A AT Ea EE gm acpi as 4 ’ 
a ee ae 





Pe yee ay mn SE ER ag © = 


es ihe Bor . a 
- a £ la » a SS unite 
BM ei Be RT Sn Rls a SE: 
a Fi ag it Ne AOI IP I~ ati RO ta: 
fae adi des es . ae Oe a rey ath ere 
POE a ote ea SNe ier e 
= “ = a eal = ly reeng « ~seige a+ Le pe epee : a. ne 
Aap > tng tnd SRL gir at ey I eg ete aah Piya readin 
” ~— . Se Oe - 2 ee eae - * 
" s ~ tng - hee 2 = 4 = 
Bn tem atte tras lal a ee al corte meen mag en ed ee ria Mawr He 
‘ ‘a — — - Aes ——< ge ne 1 lag Rag hea Pay % _ tows: ~ owes 
R. forte ti prndis ~~ ae i-ae ¢ c uae 
et, ae ea Opt A EN OEM or” ~~ a oe des ge ial 
aM age Se oe = °K ettemiproiis . pone wf nro 
leten ~My tlindnnr Me mt egghead 6 wets = 2 aD ; ; 
at ak Pym — byes De a met aaleerdintel 8 SF Py = 
ina rie tae re — Re Pelt Re SE ng mye eS 
ai ‘0 u Eee Gee nla ers in on ~ Use en’ a. 9 Pmt. + ae Ee VCE rey ud .28 
Pe ee es a na aetna - tiers rere Fosters = ~ “ i, ap Pea rair 9 ie: 
: “i waa ot Wie a, * = edb. Dera ee 7 yes ¢ pean > a - ~ ~ we ’ Pare te . Rise ies : le eee BP Ba 
. pepo titel teigie APR SE oe ; art 3 NG fr Ae 28. te 
ee ahs _—< . “ 
ar PF rs 
Ree Ne ete fo 
ee 
se mA A ANN, MS 
~ aye 
a 
sal * 





















































= = Sar oD, Pe 
Satan’ - fae mylene! yn 
© la ALLL RAL ALA PES 
eg A OI ese? AF aye My” = 
fey ee ie ay A IS Ror «ec Mettoraet ne fei tern. < 
Se Oe a 
co ey m= 5 ae nl TT yc Ba se Ne 
ye I Ray MR ba TE ie paler ths i “ a 
wn 3 Siete aa koa éf el, eee bern “i= 
te ane 0g tet Ae IN a ww. 
ee — Spied. gy “ “ <-+ 
— Oa ee ney Sag Sin Maple aN LAA i Te ALR LOL LL” IOLA CAP - 
ee ew ectitndeia ee LA, rect to ne “~ me < sy 
PEEP LT SF me o- , peeve tw, 2 
ret ete ere , 
Pst me = Re RI perp ~. 
OO ee ee = Oe oer ae a ws ~ wm 6 ates et aa. a 
- oe —_ 4 nm Py me agg ng Para gpm 2, sh lil lag * - ee 7 Aa sate! Hs ville % . 
. ; Sr oe ippmaih isat ncaaaieeenah a ap i i eet aes re Oe TRE WI I NS TOSI ee len es ha eerie aie 
te ettiedetincs aes. , ie aun an pt eg PE Al fil AE PO ITE a ORIN in Ao Py “. rae esata we siiiillag IP atl Ray celle BAS 
ait Fp OEM BIG a UR Le ALD PI eee BOE Nn NON, So NAD NB | PPO AR fe A Maton ar Pe Series it aM Sidhe 2 rs 
Cea ne a ae ee guieetPa ce tern Sai ities Kao, eRe AA 2c NPAT PE ARDEA ‘ eee ett 
Ne ete ‘enor ~ . altace eee afin Hom ee, ee ee ee Sime = ae Peay et Sricerred ai 1 - why, Be a 
po = eg OL ALLA ARR LRN RIL Peg PN am ee eee ee we fee ee Saute or pn eee 
snrter ath -sieagilen apitioaiaee ahaa Le Fy ene it nvidia ae aden a ‘“ wwe ote, gh man Si hatte: nae ape ew 


Yer a 4 

“a he Sl er ve gi Rn Nae AON CNET Fe POET tA AOA PPE SEF PRCA AERP ‘ ~ 
Sowell ements alee Se Nan tec anh eee mee Tene Dray ety, we teen a teary See ne Oe  N eaiere anni Pa land! Sei apoio SW ppahieas A VABA pe Al Eg ta ny pe 

Needed " Oa enn ana ye or “ m : eesatengy pes ye Ams Retest ors a ; ; le 





























































































































ee Sagem r - eure 









































Pee 2 r 
Ln ete ils le Sipe ae camel 





me ananent aL ere Wh ge 
Sa Np coer dalle errr ee 


ec ema tee r 
pal re nie taal Nea PS ce 
apm ty Od He ey rar NOE co anu teny a 
“et Manta AA Mea eer re ert rn ne oe Hake hay 
en ee ee on, re aenecnens BP ee ciel 
ete es